An international perspective on language policies, practices and proficiencies. Festschrift for David E. Ingram
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Abstract]: The contributors to this volume come from countries in Europe, Africa, Australia, Asia and the U.S.A. to offer insights into selected themes of applied linguistics organized under the letter ‘P’: Policies, Practices, Proficiencies, Parity, Presence and Prosperity. \n \nThe major theme underlying the volume is the question of how effective national language policies are and whether language-in-education policy is possible (Robert Kaplan. The volume poses further questions: How can language proficiency achieved and assessed more effectively? How can language communities maintain their linguistic and cultural heritage? Richard Lambert (USA) provides a succinct overview of language policy across the globe, Colin Power (Australia) considers the linguistic needs in an increasingly globalised world. Some other papers focus on language policy issues in the European Union, (see e.g. Guus Extra, The Netherlands) and the English Only Policy in the United States (see Zeynep Beykont). Other contexts include the Fiji Islands (Francis Mangubhai) and Senegal (Ibrahima Diallo). \n \nThe second section of the book addresses the issues of language teaching practices. Some of the main themes include intercultural language teaching (Tony Liddicoat, Australia and Svetlana Ter-Minasova (Russia), leaner independence (Terry Lamb, U.K and Hayo Reinders, New Zealand). An interesting addition to the volume is the theme of peace education through language education (Reinhold Freudenstein, Germany) cooperative learning and teacher professional development (Indra Odina, Latvia), a case study of an Internet-facilitated exchange program (Shirley O’Neill, Australia Chen Nian-Shing, (Taiwan) Li Min-Lee,(Taiwan) Mokoto Kageto (Japan), computer assisted language learning (Laurence Quinlivan and Denis Cunningham (Australia))and the concept of communicative competence (Indra Karapetjana, Latvia). \n \nThe third section deals with language proficiencies. Sabine Doff and Jan Franz (Germany) analyse the Common European Framework of Reference (CEF). Ieva Zuicena (Latvia) considers developments and the evolution of the language proficiency levels in learning Latvian. \n \nThe fourth section of the volume titled “Parity, Presence and Prosperity” deals with the retention of linguistic diversity. Contributors to this section identify solutions for the maintenance of linguistic diversity in the world and in various ethnolinguistic communities. Alan Hedley (Canada) uses a web analysis of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), Anikó Hatoss (Australia) reports on a sociolinguistic study of the Hungarian community of Queensland. Marie-Claire Patron (Australia) discusses language maintenance the context of Franco-Mauritians in Australia. Francisco Gomes de Matos, (Brazil), discusses linguistic rights and peace linguistics. \n \n \n
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".