Validation d’une version française de l’échelle d’évaluation cognitive primaire de Brewer et Skinner.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'objectif de cet article est de presenter deux etudes destinees a valider une version francaise de l'echelle d'evaluation cognitive de Skinner et Brewer (2002). Les qualites psychometriques, la structure factorielle et la fidelite test-retest de l'instrument ont ete evaluees dans une premiere etude. Dans une seconde etude, la validite de construit et l'adequation a deux versions d'un modele transactionnel du stress ont ete testees. En conclusion, cette echelle apparait comme un outil pertinent et approprie a l'etude de l'evaluation cognitive. A cette premiere etape de validation, ses qualites psychometriques sont satisfaisantes, mais peuvent etre aisement ameliorees par le retrait de deux items. L'analyse confirmatoire montre par ailleurs que cette version de l'echelle est davantage compatible avec un modele transactionnel dit integratif qu'avec un modele plus classique (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
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 | 0.040 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".