La théorie de la transposition didactique: un outil conceptuel pour décrire les savoirs grammaticaux élaborés en classe par les élèves
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".