Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la perspective actionnelle esquissée par le Cadre commun de référence pour les langues, on se propose de former un « acteur social », en lui proposant des occasions de coactions, dans le sens d’actions communes à finalité collective. Cette démarche, qui vise à bousculer l’agir en didactique des langues-cultures, devrait envisager la communication langagière autrement, notamment en considérant l’apprenant comme investi d’un corps, d’une sensibilité, d’une expressivité et d’un monde intérieur. C’est ce vers quoi tend le cours dit d’expression théâtrale. Après avoir expliqué les raisons qui ont conduit à cette expérience pédagogique, je donnerai quelques précisions sur la méthodologie adoptée afin de mieux comprendre les enjeux et les bienfaits de l’apport de cette pratique en situation d’apprentissage d’une langue-culture. Theatrical expression in FFL: a step towards cocreativity! The Common Frame of Reference for Languages mentions the idea of developing a “social actor” by offering opportunities for coactions in the sense of common actions to achieve a collective goal. This action-oriented approach, which aims to shake up the history of teaching and learning languages, should consider communication differently as the learner is invested with a body, a sensitivity, and the expressiveness of an inner world. The so-called class of theatrical expression strives for the same. Before explaining the reasons that led to experimenting this pedagogical use of theatre practices, I will give some details about the methodology chosen in order to better understand the challenges and advantages of the contribution of such a practice in the context of learning a language-culture.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".