Approche des représentations d’avenirs des lycéens handicapés visuels comparées à celles des lycéens valides du Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alors que de nombreux travaux portent sur les représentations d’avenir des adolescents, peu d’études rendent compte de l’impact du handicap dans l’élaboration de ces représentations. Nous proposons à travers la conduite d’entretiens individuels semi directifs avec 26 lycéens dont 13 en situation d’handicap visuel, de réaliser un travail exploratoire sur ce thème en vue de faire des propositions en termes de dispositifs d’accompagnement de ces jeunes dans le domaine du conseil en orientation au Burkina Faso. A l’issue de l’analyse de nos données, nous observons que les discours des jeunes adolescents handicapés visuels sont similaires à ceux des élèves valides. Des particularités concernant les intentions d’avenir des élèves en situation de handicap se dégagent tout de même : une influence des facteurs extérieurs sur la formation de ces intentions, des choix de professions peu diversifiés et de nature différente.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".