Unjust Adjustment: Dispelling the Myth of English Superiority within Kuwaiti STEM Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the scientific community, mastery of the English language has become vital to publishing discoveries, communicating with other scientists, and obtaining employment at multinational corporations, among other activities. In response to this need, universities in Kuwait and elsewhere in the Arabian Gulf have adopted an English-only policy for their science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programmes, forcing local students to abandon their education in Modern Standard Arabic. This article discusses the effects of the English-only approach by questioning whether it truly corresponds to the needs of the market and offers the optimal educational experience. This work further affirms that the current policies create linguistic dualism between English as a language of modernity and professionalism, and Arabic as a language of tradition and emotions. This analysis suggests the necessity of further reflection on how this approach affects the self-representation of the Kuwaiti people. Finally, this article discusses the issue of linguistic rights, namely, whether students should be allowed to study in the official national language. This micro-study of the actual effects of the spread of English in the scientific community aspires to give a voice to those who are often dehumanized by large studies of the advantages of an international language.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".