Le statut du français dans le système éducatif burundais.: analyse d’un facteur d’échec scolaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, nous analysons, à l’aide de la méthode qualitative, les usages scolaires de la langue française par les enseignants Burundais en nous référant aux pratiques langagières en vigueur dans les classes de 5ème année de l’école fondamentale. Les données y relatives, recueillies dans le cadre du Projet APPRENDRE (Enseignements-apprentissages plurilingues) et grâce à une grille d’observation de pratiques de classe et d’un guide d’entretien, ont concerné deux provinces à savoir Bujumbura (capitale du pays) et Cankuzo (extrême Est du Burundi). Concrètement, l’enquête a impliqué 30 écoles, donc 30 enseignants, à raison d’un enseignant par école. Il a été notamment remarqué que les enseignants recourent souvent à la L1 (essentiellement le kirundi) pour tenter de masquer leur faible niveau de maîtrise du français. Aussi, pour les enseignants, le bi-plurilinguisme constitue plus un fardeau qu’un avantage.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".