MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1760399225 · doi:10.3406/stice.2015.1688

Une approche sociocritique des usages numériques en éducation

2015· article· fr· W1760399225 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Collin, Nicolas Guichon, Jean-Gabin Ntebutse

Bibliographic record

VenueSciences et Technologies de l Information et de la Communication pour l Éducation et la Formation · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article a pour objectif de contribuer à formaliser une approche sociocritique du numérique en éducation. Telle que nous la concevons, cette approche consiste à étudier les relations entre le profil et le contexte socioculturel des élèves et leur disposition à s''éduquer et se former avec le numérique. Elle se situe au croisement, d’une part, de la sociologie des usages, qui a peu développé les dimensions éducatives du numérique, et d’autre part, des sciences de l’éducation, qui ont faiblement mis en lien les usages numériques proposés aux élèves en salle de classe avec ceux développés en contexte extrascolaire. Elle s’inscrit dans la thématique des usages numériques éducatifs, telle que circonscrite par (Baron, 2014), et se veut complémentaire aux approches didactique et psychopédagogique majoritairement utilisées. Nous commençons par expliciter les fondements de cette approche. Nous présentons ensuite un aperçu de trois de ses thématiques saillantes, avant d’aborder ses implications méthodologiques et sa complémentarité avec les approches didactique et psychopédagogique, ainsi que les principaux défis qu''elle doit relever.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.017
Scholarly communication0.0120.019
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations53
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciences et Technologies de l Information et de la Communication pour l Éducation et la FormationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207