MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003228307 · doi:10.7202/900316ar

Les motivations exprimées dans les manuels scolaires du Québec

2009· article· fr· W2003228307 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ramzi Salamé, Louise Désilets-Cayer

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l éducation · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Testing and Assessment
Canadian institutionsCentre Jeunesse de QuebecGouvernement du QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette recherche consiste en l’analyse du contenu motivationnel des textes de six manuels de lecture parmi les plus communément utilisés au Québec par les enfants francophones de 2e et 4e années du niveau primaire. Elle s’inspire de la tradition de recherches en motivation humaine commencées il y a trente ans par D.C. McClelland et ses collaborteurs. L’objectif en est de recenser la fréquence d’apparition des thèmes motivationnels pour les besoins d’auto-préservation tels que les besoins primaires et de sécurité, et les besoins psycho-sociaux, tels que l’affiliation, la réalisation et le pouvoir. Les résultats démontrent un taux élevé de la motivation au pouvoir, suivi de la motivation à la sécurité, des motivations secondaires et de l’affiliation, au détriment de la motivation à la réalisation qui se retrouve en dernière place, exception faite d’un seul manuel de lecture. Par rapport à ceux de 2e année, les textes de 4e année sont moins denses en thèmes bien qu’ils soient plus élaborés, plus descriptifs ou plus répétitifs. La partie critique présente quelques explications pour les résultats et des indications pour des recherches futures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.517
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.026 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l éducationSame topicPsychological Testing and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207