La relation entre enseignant-expert et apprenant(s) : quelle issue à la transgression des places dans l’interaction didactique ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article interroge la négociation de la relation interlocutive entre enseignant et apprenants qui prend place à la suite d’interventions apprenantes pouvant être jugées comme transgressives par l’enseignant. On envisage le troisième pôle de la communication didactique, le groupe des pairs, en tant qu’élément d’influence sur la décision de l’enseignant de s’affilier ou, au contraire, de se désaffilier des « propos transgressifs » de l’apprenant. Teachers and learners relationship in the language classroom: the way teachers deal with learners’ overstepping moves Abstract: Through the observation of a teacher’s feedback moves to students’ negotiations which can be interpreted by the teacher as transgressions of the classroom interaction order, we conducted an exploration of his or her tendency to meet both the negotiator and his or her peers’ needs. The results will show that the presence of the group indeed influenced teacher’s affiliation or disaffiliation from students’ overstepping moves.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".