MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1518337817

"The Map Is Not the Territory It Represents": Consequences on the Evaluation-Intervention Process

2011· article· en· W1518337817 sur OpenAlex
Gérard Lavoie

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueETC.: A Review of General Semantics · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueEducational and Psychological Assessments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyClass (philosophy)Intervention (counseling)Process (computing)Opposition (politics)Social psychologyComputer scienceLawPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A teacher meets a student during recess to discuss his behavior in class. The psychologist of the school board presents the results of a child's evaluation process. During a meeting aiming to establish a personalized intervention plan, we discuss the learning difficulties and behavioral disabilities of a student. In such situations, words are used to express one's self, to convey information, to develop a point of view, to verbalize emotions. .... Language is indeed an essential communication tool. One uses it spontaneously with the assurance that it will convey precisely what one desires to transmit. During the exchange, precisions are given; perspectives are stated and developed; and arguments are presented. Everyone thus relies on language to express a thought, but since language is often taken for granted, it is scarcely or never questioned. (1) When John is identified as being at risk, or as having a low self-esteem, or if he is diagnosed with opposition/provocation trouble, what do these terms tell us about him in particular? In short, what is a word? What is language? Can the category at risk associated with John can be considered true to who he is in reality'? To answer positively is actually to consider language as a mere copy or a reflection of reality; in other words, like a reflection in a mirror! A radically different perspective would be to consider language as a concerted means of communication, a social convention. Considered as such, when one affirms that John is at risk, one refers to certain rules, or certain socially agreed upon standards in order to assert that such is the case. (2) According to such a perspective, rather than being conceived as simple reflections of reality, words would be considered social agreements entailing order or collectively giving meaning to situations or to things around us. A student has failed an important evaluation; he frequently hands back unfinished papers; he always postpones his work; and one could add any other such observations concerning his adaptation to the school setting or its apprenticeships. In Quebec, due to the Ministere de l' education's (2000) definition, the label at risk could certainly be considered on the basis of such a set of observations. The obvious difficulties of the student would thus be evaluated or weighted according to the predictability of his academic failure. (3) Would the appellation at risk be considered as a reflection or a faithful mirror of this particular case? If so, wouldn't it be possible to reverse the operation and, from that designation, obtain an accurate description of this student? Obviously the answer is negative. What should be concluded then? In brief, how relevant is it to inquire about the meaning of language? What benefits can be drawn from such an inquiry in regard to planning an approach to help and support a student in difficulty? Alfred Korzybsky's widely cited formula Map is not the deserves careful consideration in order to clearly grasp the issue of language's meaning. The aim of the present paper is to clarify the significance of this apparently trivial claim in the case of an evaluation--intervention plan. Indeed, one admits the usefulness of a roadmap or even its necessity for travel. In the same way, the description of a child's situation might be helpful even though it does not cover the overall territory. Certain therapists, as it will be shown in this paper, make an explicit use of this metaphor of the map and the territory to orient their intervention plan. Map Is Not the Territory First consider this story reported by Korzybski (1951): In a railroad compartment an American grandmother with her young and attractive granddaughter, a Romanian officer, and a Nazi officer were the only occupants. The train was passing through a dark tunnel, and all that was heard was a loud kiss and a vigorous slap. After the train emerged from the tunnel, nobody spoke, but the grandmother was saying to herself, 'What a fine girl I have raised. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,651
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,995

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,207
Tête enseignante GPT0,469
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle