MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607590457 · doi:10.4000/rdst.406

Analyse des raisonnements d’élèves sur les circuits en courant continu et les lois de Kirchhoff

2011· article· fr· W1607590457 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdeljalil Métioui, J. Levasseur

Bibliographic record

VenueRDST · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Une méthode de recherche de type qualitatif nous a permis d’analyser les raisonnements d’élèves québécois du collégial professionnel (17 à 21 ans) en technologies de génie électrique. Nous avons identifié leurs raisonnements en les mobilisant sur des problèmes nécessitant le recours aux notions d’intensité et de tension électriques. Nous avons utilisé des moyens classiques tels le questionnaire papier-crayon et l’entretien semi-dirigé pour mettre en évidence leurs raisonnements. L’analyse démontre que la majorité des erreurs identifiées peut être interprétée par une mauvaise appropriation des lois de Kirchhoff sur les courants et les tensions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRDSTSame topicVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesFrench-language works237,207