Psychopédagogie du jeu de simulation pour l’apprentissage de l’histoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette recherche1 a pour objectif de vérifier la validité du jeu de simulation comme méthode d’enseignement et comme instrument de développement de la pensée, ainsi que d’étudier les liens entre l’apprentissage et les comportements des étudiant-e-s face au jeu. Trois groupes collégiaux d’« Histoire des relations internationales » ont participé à la recherche, deux groupes avec jeu de simultation et un groupe de contrôle. Les groupes expérimentaux ont mieux réussi aux tests de compréhension et les sujets formels de ces deux groupes (évalués par un test d’arrangement) ont acquis le plus de connaissances. Le style d’apprentissage s’est également avéré une variable importante pour expliquer la motivation face au jeu. 1. Cette recherche a été rendue possible grâce à un octroi du Programme de subvention à l’innovation pédagogique du Québec accordé aux professeurs Pierre Corbeil, Suzanne Cuisinier et Dany Laveault.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".