MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1948528898 · doi:10.4000/apliut.2438

Mémoire et mémorisation dans l’apprentissage des langues: magie naturelle ou processus laborieux?

2006· article· fr· W1948528898 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Aitchison

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de l APLIUT · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’auteur présente les différentes étapes de l’acquisition du langage et se demande si le processus relève d’un phénomène de ‘magie naturelle’ ou représente plutôt un travail long et laborieux. Il conclut qu’il est à la fois une magie naturelle et un gros effort. Il est important d’avoir conscience de l’évolution normale en fonction de l’âge pour pouvoir aider les apprenants de seconde langue. Et le rôle des assistant(e)s maternel(le)s qui s’occupent des jeunes enfants est particulièrement déterminant.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de l APLIUTSame topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207