Scripteurs en action! Modélisation et échafaudage du processus d'écriture d'apprenants de langue seconde
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le projet de recherche Scripteurs en action s’inscrit dans la lignee des travaux en ergonomie des interfaces d’apprentissage des langues mediatise par les technologies (ALMT) de ma superviseure de recherche, Mme Marie-Josee Hamel. Sa recherche s’interesse en particulier a l’interaction des apprenants de langue (francais et anglais langue seconde) avec les ressources langagieres auxquelles ils accedent en ligne pour effectuer des tâches langagieres de production ecrite (redaction, revision et traduction de textes). L’objectif de la recherche est d’observer les usages que les apprenants font de ces ressources langagieres et de mesurer la qualite de l’interaction ‘apprenanttâche-ressource’ dans ce contexte specifique. Scripteurs en action est un projet d’equipe subventionne par le Conseil ontarien de la qualite de l’enseignement superieur (COQES) en partenariat avec Jeremie Seror, cochercheur de l’Universite d’Ottawa et Chantal Dion, collaboratrice de l’Universite Carleton ainsi que des participants (professeurs et etudiants) des deux etablissements. Ma contribution au projet de recherche
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".