Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract According to the scholastic traditions and the familiar and accustomed ways, in the educational settings, majority of the discourses on non-mother tongue education revolves around technicalities and approaches, as well as whether a published collection, commonly known as a “method”, is new or old. However, in reality, it is the socio-historical context and the dominant ideology prevailing the language education and educational contents that determine the teaching methods, language learner’s identity, selected content of courses, organization of the contents to be presented in the class, reasons for preparing such contents, explicit or implicit goals of teaching non-mother tongues, in all their realized forms. The goals of French-speaking nobility in 16th century England in preparing Latin material for teaching French were not the same as those in the courses prepared for job-seeking immigrants in 21st century French-speaking Quebec province of Canada. This paper briefly presents the theoretical materials and then we review the current situation based on the available data for external and dominating contexts on the teaching of non-mother tongues and then we conclude with posing fundamental questions in this area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".