Enquête sociométrique concernant le leadership et la popularité des adolescents en milieu scolaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une vaste enquête sociométrique a été menée dans plusieurs écoles de niveau secondaire afin de cerner les concordances et les discordances entre les concepts de leadership et de popularité. Trois cents garçons et deux cent quatre-vingts filles ont été particulièrement choisis par leurs camarades de classe. Les deux dimensions — leadership et popularité — ne sont associées chez un même individu que dans 36 % des cas pour les adolescents et 28 % pour les adolescentes. Essayant de dégager certains traits caractéristiques des personnes choisies comme leaders ou très populaires, les auteurs ont constaté l’influence plus grande exercée par l’intelligence de type verbal sur le leadership ainsi que l’importance des résultats scolaires. En ce qui concerne la personnalité, quelques différences apparaissent mais varient selon le sexe. L’enquête sociométrique reste, malgré tout, un instrument utile dans des situations scolaires.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".