Bibliographic record
Abstract
Originally used in artistic circles, the portfolio has gained considerable ground in the education field, where it serves a multitude of functions, both academic and professional. It is also a rapidly evolving tool, notably due to advances in Web 2.0 technology that have opened the way to new pedagogical potentials. The portfolio is also prominent in second-language teaching and learning programs, as witnessed by the European Language Portfolio (ELP), which was developed and piloted by the Council of Europe and is used as a support tool in line with the ISSN 1518-3483 Licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons Rev. Diálogo Educ., Curitiba, v. 10, n. 31, p. 581-592, set./dez. 2010 582 KARSENTI, T.; COLLIN, S. Rev. Diálogo Educ., Curitiba, v. 10, n. 31, p. 581-592, set./dez. 2010 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). In this context, we present Eduportfolio, a flexible electronic portfolio that can be adapted to a variety of educational contexts, including second language (L2) education. We draw a portrait of the portfolio in education, including the advantages of the electronic version. We then present Eduportfolio along with some empirical results to illustrate eportfolio use in French second language (FSL) teaching and learning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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 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".