La théorie de la transposition didactique: un outil conceptuel pour décrire les savoirs grammaticaux élaborés en classe par les élèves
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of our research is the description of the grammatical knowledge elaborated by students in the course of verb agreement instruction. This description is achieved through the analysis of the role played by the interactions between the three poles of the didactic triangle (student, teacher and content) in the construction of the content taught.Chevallard’s theory (1985/1991) of didactic transposition constitutes the cornerstone of our work. The concepts of external didactic transposition (content to be taught) and internal didactic transposition (content actually taught) will be used to analyze didactical interactions. As a conceptual instrument, we use the pair chronogenesis/topogenesis to describe the transition from content to be taught to content actually taught and learned.This article focuses on the conceptual and methodological aspects associated with the study of didactic interactions in the classroom; results will be presented only in order to illustrate our approach, which lies within the theoretical framework of the didactic transposition theory.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it