MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234161044 · doi:10.2979/reseafrilite.47.3.11

[no title]

2016· article· W4234161044 on OpenAlex
Alain Ricard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in African Literatures · 2016
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDescendantContext (archaeology)HistoryLiteracyHumanitiesLinguisticsArtSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Le Fil de l’ecrit, une anthropologie de l’alphabetisation au Mali by Aïssatou Mbodj-Pouye Alain Ricard Le Fil de l’ecrit, une anthropologie de l’alphabetisation au Mali by Aïssatou Mbodj-Pouye ENS-éditions,2013. 269pp. ISBN 9782847884135 paper. Ten years ago we published a collection of papers on the first novel in several African languages (Garnier and Ricard). It was the product of a three-year-long seminar. One of the most intriguing papers dealt with bambara and gave us many headaches: there simply did not seem to exist long fiction texts written directly in bambara. Jean Derive identified one such text and later discovered that it was a bambara adaptation of a first draft in French, commissioned by a Canadian NGO. It nonetheless remained a credible candidate for the position of the first novel in the language. The close contiguity of French and Bambara, the mixing of language, is what is shown in Mbodj-Pouye’s book at the grassroots level. Historically the African language most taught in France was Bambara; many epics have been edited and translated, and conversation books were published a long time ago. Bambara was the language of the tirailleurs. Was this closeness in a context of devaluation of African languages the reason why instead of promoting Bambara it became locked in a very subaltern position? These questions are not addressed directly in the book, but provide the background to an anthropology of literacy, written with remarkable methodological care by Mbodj-Pouye. She has done extensive fieldwork (six months between 2002 and 2004), conducted many interviews, and written several life histories of villagers in the area of southern Mali between Sikasso and Kita along the Ivoirian border where cotton is grown and where literacy campaigns were conducted in the last decades of the 20th century with the help of UNESCO. In that area, twice as many people can read Bambara (19%) compared to French, and the same applies to writing. Interestingly enough, these individuals, mostly men, were often one and the same, as Mbodj-Pouye shows. This competence is also an effect of a “moderate attachment” to Bambara, perceived as “forobakan,” the language of all, the vehicular language (77). Thus the division is not, as Goody thought, between those who do and those who do not write, but a fluid separation between languages in writing, a “legitimizing practice,” for those aspiring to positions of “responsibility” (79). It is useful in every day life to know how to write and villagers know that and use it very practically: work, family, and trade are the main areas of writing use. The author looked for practices of appropriation leading to the personal use of writing, [End Page 179] for instance in correspondence. This exists, but she was not shown letters, except those sent to the radio statio. She studied a similar corpus in a recent article as part of a follow up of her study (Mbodj-Pouye and Van den Avenne). She also wanted to identify, if possible, the emergence of discursive genres, to use a Bakhtinian concept (198), or their use in the notebooks. How can subjects use their agency and not be mere tools of a production system? She chose a more practical approach, identifying several practices of appropriation such as reusing previous texts, copying, and even, in the case of one of her informants, Moussa Camara, attempting first-person writing (228). Writing in several languages, translating calendars, and collecting anecdotes and stories about Sufi saints is also part of the repertory of some notebooks. She even quotes a performative utterance linked to incantatory texts. She notices that the practice of “writing stories in bambara has not been verified among former school children” (242), and this is probably related to the difficulties mentioned previously. You write in French, that is what has been taught in school. French is different and special, more linked with writing practices. The contrasting uses of “code switching” for Bambara terms indicate quite strongly this special relationship, foregrounding the foreign (243). Writing is not spontaneous and the recourse to a foreign language is a symptom of that distance. She attempts to classify corpuses of inscriptions...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it