Apprendre le/en français : quelles réponses didactiques apportées aux élèves allophones, en France et au Québec ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé : Dans cet article, les auteures examinent l’appréhension de l’expression « Français langue seconde » dans les contextes de la France et du Québec, et telle qu’elle a évolué à travers des textes institutionnels et des ouvrages de référence. Après avoir mis en évidence la fluctuation notionnelle rattachée à cette terminologie, tributaire des politiques linguistiques et des contextes sociolinguistiques, il s’agit d’identifier la place qui est envisagée pour les disciplines enseignées en langue seconde (DLS). Est notamment interrogée la répartition équivoque des responsabilités entre l’enseignant de français et les enseignants des autres disciplines scolaires, pour lesquels la formation initiale n’est pas envisagée de façon analogue de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique. En dépit de divergences, le nombre restreint d’études et de ressources touchant aux DLS au sein des deux territoires invite à collaborer sur des problématiques communes pour apporter de la teneur à un fonctionnement structurel institutionnel qui supplée des lacunes didactiques. Abstract : In this article, the authors examine the apprehension of the "French as a second language" expression in the contexts of France and Quebec, and as it has evolved through institutional texts and academic references. After highlighting the notional fluctuation associated with this terminology, which depends on linguistic policies and sociolinguistic contexts, the place for second language subjects (SLS) is identified in both sites. In particular, the authors question the equivocal distribution of responsibilities between French teachers and mainstream teachers, for whom initial training is not considered similarly on both sides of the Atlantic. In spite of differences, the limited number of studies and resources related to the SLS within the two territories invites to collaborate on common issues to bring content to a structural and institutional functioning that adresses didactic gaps. Catherine Mendonça Dias - Paris 3 – Sorbonne Nouvelle catherine.mendonca-dias@sorbonne-nouvelle.fr Diane Querrien - Université Concordia diane.querrien@concordia.ca
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".