Channel
@scienceetpratique
On this record: Also posting the same content · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
4,648subscribers
-3 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001433260754 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @scienceetpratique |
| Created | 1 November 2018 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 14 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 5 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 14 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/scienceetpratique |
This channel’s posts match, word for word or near enough, posts on 3 other registered channels, found by comparing text fingerprints across every channel on the register. That matching has been checked by hand against the live Telegram pages and found reliable — 0 wrong of 45 pairs re-read.
Which channel, if either, published first is deliberately not shown. The same hand-check found that reading wrong 18 of 45 times — 60%, no better than a coin flip — because it depends on how deep our own crawl happened to reach into each channel’s history, not on when the content was actually first posted. This list is ordered by subscriber count, the same as every other listing on this site, never by which channel we think came first. Word-for-word matching has several ordinary explanations besides copying — a channel mirroring itself, an unattributed repost, or two channels independently repeating the same wire story — and this measurement cannot tell those apart. How this is measured.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 14 Aug 2026, 23:05 | 4,648 | +1 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 21:32 | 4,647 | -3 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 02:31 | 4,650 | -1 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 10:00 | 4,651 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 04:04 | 4,651 | first reading |
26 posts held, back to 10 July 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 7 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 19 of 21 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 11 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 26 (10 July 2026 – 11 August 2026) |
| Views total | 10,825 |
| Reactions total | 76 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 05:39 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Measured directly from 1 video with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
76 reactions across 19 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 64.5% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 49 | 64.5% | |
| ✍ | 23 | 30.3% | |
| 🤝 | 3 | 3.95% | |
| 👏 | 1 | 1.32% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 23 of the 26 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 100reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 26 most recent posts we hold, published 10 July 2026 to 11 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Errata: Dans mon dernier texte sur la décortication morpho-sémantique (https://t.me/scienceetpratique/6164), j'ai commis une erreur concernant le nombre (7) attribué aux versets stipulant l'Établissement (Istiwê') d'Allâh Tout-Puissant sur le trône. Le verset en question est celui-ci « Le Tout-Miséricordieux S’est établi (Istèwê) sur le Trône. ». Alors qu'en vérité, il n'est évoqué qu'une seule fois. Les 6 autres…
🤝3✍1👍1
التفكيك الصرفي الدلالي تصويب خطأ واستدراك سهو فقد ذكرت في منشور سابق، أن آية "الرحمن على العرش استوى" وردت سبع مرات في القرآن الكريم. والصواب أن هذا العدد يخص إجمالي ورود معنى (الاستواء على العرش) بكل صيغه. بينما صيغة التقديم بجملة "على العرش استوى" لم ترد إلا مرة واحدة، وذلك في قوله تعالى: {الرَّحْمَٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَىٰ} (طه: 5) أما الصيغة الأخرى "استوى على العرش" (بتقديم الفعل)، فقد وردت ست مرات؛ في:…
Photo, posted without a caption
La décortication ou déconstruction morpho-sémantique La déconstruction morpho-sémantique : quelle fascinante opération ! Une véritable machine de guerre intellectuelle et linguistique ! Il s’agit à la fois d’un concept descriptif et opératoire. Elle permet d’atteindre et de toucher l’essence même du mot ; au point que tu le voie se tenir debout devant toi, le regard fixe, empreint de déférence... Et le voilà qu…
👍1
التفكيك الصرفي الدلالي... La décortication ou déconstruction morpho-sémantique. التفكيك الصرفي الدلالي تفكيك عجيب! هو آلة حرب فكرية ولغوية بحق! وهو مصطلح وصفي وعملياتي في الوقت نفسه: Concept descriptif et opératoire. فتتوصل به إلى لمس ماهية الكلمة؛ حتى وكأنك تراها تقف أمامك شاخصة ببصرها إليك بإجلال... فإذا بها تغرف لك بخباياها بما تخفي في زواياها... ومثاله في العقيدة؛ تفكيك لفظ: Repose-pied(s). مسند الرَّجُلِ …
✍1
لا إتقان في الترجمة بعيدا عن إتقان اللسانيات * تُعتبر اللسانياتُ الركيزةَ الأساسية لـ "علم الترجمة" (الترجمية)، كونها أصولاً نظرية، أو علماً قائماً بذاته، لا يستغنى عنه لضبط عملية الترجمة تطبيقا. وهي، اللسانيات، بفروعها ومجالاتها المتعددة، لا تفترُ عن إثراء هذا العلم الحديث ومدّه بأسباب النمو والارتقاء. وقد لفت اللسانيون الغربيون الأنظار مبكراً إلى أن العمل الترجمي -كونه اشتغالاً بالدرجة الأولى على اللسان واللغات-…
👍2
La linguistique est le soubassement de la traductologie, théorie ou science de la traduction. Avec ses différentes disciplines, elle n’a de cesse d’enrichir et d’aider à grandir cette science assez récente qu’est la traductologie. Les linguistes ont très tôt attiré l’attention sur le fait que la traduction, étant un travail sur la/les langue-s, la nécessité de l’attacher à la science qui étudie la langue (la linguist…
✍2
Quiconque pense que la rhétorique est limitée par les contours d'un goût à l’exclusion d’un autre, et qu’elle est cernée par un style à l’exclusion d’un autre… qu’il sache alors que la rhétorique ne s’est pas encore mêlée à l’être de son âme. Dr Aboû Fahîma.
👍3
....... 📩💬 Pour envoyer vos questions et demandes de consultation liées à la daawa en français, à la linguistique et à la traduction, vous pouvez nous contacter via WhatsApp : 📲 https://wa.me/+213541437344, ou par mail : [email protected]
✍3
C'est comme si rien ne ressemblait à l'inimitié des ennemis, si ce n'est la méprise des êtres chers envers la façon de penser de ceux qu'ils aiment et à leur manière d'appréhender les questions les plus obscures... En vérité, il s'agit d'une question d'entendement. Or, Allâh le dispense aux hommes tout comme Il leur dispense Ses bienfaits. Dr Aboû Fahîma.
✍8
L'Imam Ibn Badis sur la Wèhhêbiyya (wahhabisme!). هذا ما قاله الإمام ابن باديس عن الوهابية.
👍5✍1👏1
العلم والعمل-Science et pratique pinned a photo
Showing the 12 most recent of 26 posts we hold for @scienceetpratique. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank — 30,963 of 1,350,102entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 3 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 14 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“العلم والعمل-Science et pratique” (@scienceetpratique), 4,648 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/scienceetpratique.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.