Pour une définition de l’action dans la perspective actionnelle en France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues, document de référence sur la conception de l’enseignement des langues en Europe, se situe dans une perspective actionnelle. Cependant, il ne promeut aucune théorie sous-jacente. Cet article, à partir de la métasynthèse qualitative de la littérature sur la question, montre que pourtant le Cadre et la communauté scientifique en faveur de la perspective actionnelle valorisent les théories socioconstructivistes lorsqu’ils caractérisent la notion d’action. The Common European Framework of Reference for Language, a reference document on the conception of the instruction of European languages, is set in an action-oriented approach. Yet, it does not promote any underlying theory. Using a qualitative metasynthesis of literature to address the issue, this article shows, however, that the Framework and the scientific community in favour of the action-oriented approach value these socioconstructivist theories when they characterise the concept of action. Article reçu le 2011-10-09; accepté le 2012-08-01
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".