MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988443387 · doi:10.7202/901376ar

Groupements catégoriels et définitions des difficultés en lecture et en orthographe

2009· article· fr· W1988443387 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Pierre-H. Ruel

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l éducation · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article établit un point d’une recherche sur la relation, d’une part des difficultés lexiques ou orthographiques et, d’autre part, des facteurs qui peuvent en être à l’origine. Les difficultés en lecture sont classées en trois grandes catégories : 1) les erreurs de son; 2) les erreurs de forme; 3) les autres types d’erreurs. La classification des difficultés en orthographe se fait aussi sous trois catégories : 1) les erreurs de son; 2) les erreurs de grammaire; 3) les erreurs d’usage. Chacune de ces catégories se subdivise en sous-groupes. Ces classifications sont faites pour aider les spécialistes en troubles d’apprentissage ainsi que les enseignants qui doivent intervenir auprès des élèves qui ont des difficultés d’apprentissage en lecture et en orthographe.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.270
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l éducationSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207