L'Évaluation de la production orale en français intensif: critères et résultats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the evaluation of the oral production of Grade 6 students who participated in the first three years of the Newfoundland and Labrador research project on intensive French (1998 2001). Three areas were investigated: the level of communication achieved; the relationship between the number of hours of instruction and the level achieved; and the development of a balance between accuracy and fluency in oral production. The instruments used included the oral interview administered at the end of the secondary core French program in Newfoundland and Labrador, based on a scale from 1 to 5, and an instrument developed by the researchers to measure the extent to which students had developed both accuracy and fluency in their oral production, evaluated on a scale of 1 to 3. The results for the three years indicate that students attained an average score of 3.7 on the interview, which corresponds to level 4 of the interview scale; that is, they were able to show considerable spontaneity in language production and to initiate and sustain general conversation. However, no direct relationship was found between number of hours of instruction and achievement; teaching strategies used appeared to exert considerable influence on achievement. It was also impossible to distinguish the two factors of accuracy and fluency in the students' oral production.
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".