MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006413565 · doi:10.7202/1024722ar

Analyse thématique et analyse propositionnelle

2014· article· fr· W2006413565 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johan Vanoutrive, Antoine Derobertmasure, Nathanaël Friant

Bibliographic record

VenueMesure et évaluation en éducation · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicValues and Moral Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En fonction des objectifs d’une recherche, diverses méthodes d’analyse de contenu sont envisageables. Un corpus de témoignages, recueilli auprès d’élèves de troisième secondaire de la Communauté française de Belgique, a été traité selon deux méthodes complémentaires : une analyse thématique et une analyse propositionnelle. Sur la base du travail de codage, de l’analyse propositionnelle et du croisement de ces méthodes, la discussion de la typologie des injustices scolaires de Dubet (1999) éclaire les précédentes conclusions du groupe GERESE selon lequel les sentiments de justice des élèves sont significativement liés à leur autoévaluation de leur niveau scolaire.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMesure et évaluation en éducationSame topicValues and Moral EducationFrench-language works237,207