Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les questions de la norme langagière, de l’erreur et de l’erreur lexicale en particulier restent toujours pertinentes dans la didactique des langues. Qu’est-ce qu’une erreur lexicale et comment peut-elle être appréhendée dans une perspective didactique ? Quelle approche peut-on adopter lors d’une tâche de correction face à l’erreur lexicale ? Réalisé dans le cadre d’une recherche-observation basée sur le recueil et l’analyse des productions écrites d’un groupe d’étudiants universitaires non francophones, l’article vise à présenter l’erreur lexicale en tant qu’indicateur et outil d’analyse du niveau de la compétence lexicale acquise chez les apprenants FLE. Cette démarche, illustrée dans l’article par une analyse longitudinale des trois textes produits par une étudiante non francophone, soulève néanmoins les difficultés théoriques et pratiques liées à l’analyse et au classement d’erreurs lexicales, ainsi qu’à leur correction et à des applications didactiques possibles d’une typologie d’erreurs lexicales.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".