Mettre les pairs à contribution lors du processus d’écriture : une analyse de l’impact du groupe de révision rédactionnelle chez les élèves québécois et néo-brunswickois*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de cette recherche était d’examiner l’impact des groupes de révision rédactionnelle sur des élèves francophones de 4e année du primaire, (n = 72) au Québec et au Nouveau-Brunswick. Les résultats révèlent que les commentaires oraux qui touchent l’orthographe lexicale et grammaticale se retrouvent plus souvent sous forme de révisions dans la copie finale que les suggestions formulées pour la grammaire du texte. Nous avons également trouvé que les élèves, lorsqu’ils rédigeaient seuls, étaient capables de transférer les connaissances en orthographe grammaticale apprises en groupe. Finalement, il semble que la rétroaction verbale des pairs ait un effet positif sur le transfert des connaissances en écriture tant en milieux linguistiques majoritaire que minoritaire.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".