Making "Wiggle Room" in French as a Second Language/Francais Langue Seconde: Reconfiguring Identity, Language, and Policy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this two‐year ethnographic study, I critically examined the problematic nature of the construct French as a Second Language (FSL), drawing specifically from the lived experiences of Canadian youth of Italian origin, participating in a teacher education course to prepare teachers of French. Using discourse analysis of interviews, observa‐ tions, and focus groups, I found that participants’ social identities and linguistic prac‐ tices were complex and varied. However, current FSL policies and practice do not reflect such diversity or multidimensionality. To conclude, I demonstrate the import‐ ance of making some “wiggle room” regarding the construction of French as a Second Language (FSL) to reflect a more pluralistic society. Key words: identity construction, Italian Canadian youth, ideologies, official language policies, teacher education, Ontario education Dans cet article, basé sur une étude ethnographique de deux ans, j’ai examiné la nature problématique du construit « français langue seconde (FLS) » en portant spécifiquement sur les expériences vécues de jeunes Italo‐canadiens durant leur formation pour devenir enseignants de français langue seconde dans le paysage multiculturel de Toronto. En fai‐ sant une analyse de discours des entrevues audio et vidéo semi‐dirigées, des réunions avec les groupes cibles, et des observations, j’ai découvert que les identités sociales ainsi que les pratiques langagières de ces jeunes étaient complexes et variées. La politique et les pra‐ tiques actuelles du français langue seconde, pourtant, ne reflètent pas une telle diversité ou la multidimensionalité des réalités sociales des jeunes. Pour conclure, je souligne l’importance de créer des « zones du confort » ou « Wiggle room » en ce qui concerne le construit « français langue seconde » afin qu’il corresponde plus à la société qui est mar‐ quée par le pluralisme. Mots clés: Construction identitaire, français langue seconde (FLS), jeunes italo‐canadiens, idéologies, politique officielle des langues, formation des maîtres, éducation en Ontario
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".