MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1562384897

La pertinence didactique de la phrase de base pour l’enseignement du français

2012· article· fr· W1562384897 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Claude Boivin

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesVerb phrasePhilosophyNoun phraseLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dans cet article, nous situons les modèles scientifique et didactique de la phrase de base, et argumentons pour le choix d’un modèle didactique de la phrase de base cohérent et adéquat au plan descriptif. La phrase de base (P) est constituée d’un groupe nominal (GN) et d’un groupe verbal (GV), auxquels peuvent se joindre un ou plusieurs groupes facultatifs de catégories grammaticales variables (GX), et est noté GN GV (GX)+. Dans un deuxième temps, nous détaillons stratégie de reconstruction de la phrase de base, en insistant sur le rétablissement de l’ordre canonique des éléments (incluant le rétablissement de l’ordre dans le GV, par le remplacement des pronoms par des groupes syntaxiques « pleins »). Le cœur de cette stratégie se situe dans l’établissement par l’élève d’un lien systématique entre la structure de base et la structure transformée. Nous démontrons par la suite la pertinence didactique de la P de base en écriture et en lecture, à l’aide d’un un ensemble de contextes syntaxiques reconnus comme difficiles pour les élèves et où le modèle de la P de base peut s’avérer utile : problèmes d’accord, GN orphelin (sans GV), compléments de phrase orphelins (hors P), phrases à inversion stylistique, phrases complexes, etc. Sans couvrir tous les cas de figure, l’article expose la logique du travail didactique avec la phrase de base et met en évidence sa pertinence. In this paper, I first discuss the status of the basic sentence model as a scientific and an instructional model. I argue for the choice of a specific model of the basic sentence, which is internally coherent and descriptively adequate. The basic sentence (S) is made up of a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP, to which one or more phrases of variable grammatical category can be added (XP, and is transcribed NP VP (XP)+, I then examine the way the strategy known as “reconstruction of the basic sentence” can work in instructional settings, insisting on the return to the basic word order (including word order inside the VP, by the replacement of pronouns with full phrases). The core of the strategy is the link that the students can systematically make between the basic sentence structure and the transformed structure. I then show the relevance of the basic sentence model in writing and readings contexts, using a variety of syntactic contexts which are known to be problematic for the students and where the model can be useful (agreement, orphan NPs, orphan adjuncts, stylistic inversion constructions, complex sentences, etc.). Even without covering all the possible cases, the paper clearly shows the logic of the use of the basic sentence model in writing and reading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0960.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.165
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207