MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1962928799 · doi:10.7202/1026309ar

L’opposition inductif/déductif en enseignement de la grammaire : un débat à nuancer

2014· article· fr· W1962928799 on OpenAlexaffvenue
François Vincent, Pascale Lefrançois

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l éducation · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les termes méthodes déductives et méthodes inductives sont abondamment utilisés dans le discours concernant l’intervention éducative. Nous avons mené une recension d’écrits concernant l’efficience des méthodes inductives et déductives en didactique des langues. Nous démontrons que l’efficience des unes par rapport aux autres ne peut être soutenue par les recherches comparatives dichotomiques, la prise en considération d’un cadre d’analyse plus large de l’intervention éducative étant nécessaire. Nous fournissons, par la même occasion, un cadre conceptuel pour la définition des méthodes déductives et inductives.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.030
Scholarly communication0.0130.018
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l éducationSame topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207