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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gérard Lavoie

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,086
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,183
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,086
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,455

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0860,183
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0260,040
Communication savante0,0160,011
Science ouverte0,0040,018
Intégrité de la recherche0,0100,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,002

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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueETC.: A Review of General SemanticsMême sujetEducational and Psychological AssessmentsTravaux en français237 207