Quand les élèves « font de la grammaire » en classe : analyse d’interventions métalinguistiques d’élèves du secondaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente une analyse quantitative d’interventions métalinguistiques d’élèves du secondaire québécois alors qu’ils travaillent un objet grammatical complexe en classe. Le corpus compte 385 interventions, codées selon leur forme (affirmation, question, hypothèse) et selon trois observables métalinguistiques (métalangage, manipulation syntaxique, jugement de grammaticalité). Les affirmations s’avèrent beaucoup plus fréquentes que les hypothèses et les questions. Le métalangage est utilisé dans un tiers des interventions, et les manipulations syntaxiques sont peu présentes. Des jugements de grammaticalité sont exprimés dans le quart des interventions, et sont adéquats dans la majorité des cas. L’analyse fine prend en compte la véracité des affirmations, la pertinence des manipulations et leur caractère concluant, de même le caractère explicite ou implicite des jugements de grammaticalité.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".