Les cercles littéraires entre pairs en première secondaire : étude des relations entre les modalités de lecture et de collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude décrit la dynamique des interactions de nature sociale, métacognitive et cognitive dans les cercles littéraires en première secondaire ainsi que les différences entre les groupes « fort » et « régulier ». L’analyse des transcriptions de huit discussions révèle, sur le plan cognitif (ou du contenu discuté), que la compréhension littérale est le mode de lecture le plus employé, même si les modes esthétique et analytique entraînent plutôt des réflexions plus élaborées. Sur le plan des interactions sociales, il appert que près de la moitié des échanges entre acteurs ont pour but de gérer la tâche et de rétroagir aux propos des pairs. Les groupes « forts » auraient tendance à adopter une modalité plus divergente de coélaboration du sens.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".