MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038268158 · doi:10.1353/cml.2005.0009

Le journal de bord comme outil de reflexion dans la classe d'anglais langue seconde du primaire: Qu'en pensent les premiers concernes?

2004· article· fr· W2038268158 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Daphnée Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article fait �tat d'une recherche visant � explorer les perceptions de jeunes francophones de sixi�me ann�e primaire apprenant l'anglais langue seconde (ALS) relativement � l'utilisation du journal de bord (JB). Les participants (n = 54) provenaient de deux classes intactes (groupe Enrichi et groupe R�gulier). Un questionnaire a �t� pass� aux participants apr�s deux mois d'utilisation du journal de bord. Un pr�-test et un post-test ont �t� utilis�s afin d'observer l'effet de l'utilisation du JB sur la capacit� de r�flexion m�talinguistique des participants ainsi que sur leur acquisition de l'ALS. Les r�ponses fournies ont r�v�l� que bien que la majorit� des participants ait aim� utiliser le JB, une plus grande proportion d'entre eux provenait du groupe Enrichi. Elles mettent �galement en lumi�re qu'une plus grande proportion de participants provenant du groupe Enrichi a observ� un effet positif de l'utilisation du JB sur leur acquisition de l'anglais L2 et que cette observation s'est av�r�e juste. This article reports on a study exploring the perceptions of French grade six students learning English as a second language (ESL) and their use of a diary. The participants (n = 54) came from two intact classes (Regular Group and Enriched Group). Once the students had used the diary for a two-month period, a questionnaire was administered. A pre-test and a post-test were used to observe the diary's effect on the subjects' metalinguistic abilities as well as on their acquisition of English as a second language. The answers revealed that although the majority of subjects enjoyed using the diary, a greater percentage of those who found the diary useful came from the Enriched group. The answers also revealed that the use of a diary had a positive effect on the students in the Enriched group in the acquisition of English as a second language. Results obtained on the tests proved this observation to be correct.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207