Processus cognitifs des étudiants du postsecondaire en production de textes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous disposons encore de peu de données sur la maîtrise des processus cognitifs impliqués en production de texte chez des étudiants du postsecondaire. L'objet du présent texte consiste précisément à rendre compte des stratégies mobilisées par les scripteurs des ordres collégial et universitaire. Nous observons chez ces scripteurs le recours au sous-processus de planification, de rédaction et de révision. Nous mettons également en relation les connaissances linguistiques et discursives pour cerner cette question des compétences en production de texte. Les résultats indiquent que les sujets accordent une attention particulière à chacun de ces processus sans en détenir la complète maîtrise et qu'il y aurait une certaine relation entre les compétences linguistiques et les compétences discursives.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".