Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le sensoriel et l’expression plastique sont-ils des outils de formation pertinents pour aller à la rencontre de l’altérité et de la diversité linguistique et culturelle ? Nous nous proposons de répondre à cette question en analysant des productions d’étudiants : ceux-ci rendent compte de leur fréquentation d’une langue par une création plastique qui privilégie les aspects sensoriels de cette expérience. Ce double processus les amène à une réflexion métalinguistique et à une posture d’accueil du plurilinguisme. We sketch our languages and develop teaching skills Abstract: Are sensorial and plastic activities appropriate tools to develop language awareness and intercultural skills, in a college of education? To answer this question, we ask students to express their sensorial and affective experience of a language they choose: scrutinizing their productions enables us to see the impact of this activity, regarding their metalinguistic reflection and their receptiveness to linguistic and cultural plurality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".