Rappel stimulé, objectivation clinique, réflexion partagée. Fondements méthodologiques et applications pratiques de la rétroaction vidéo en recherche et en formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article1 présente les aspects méthodologiques fondateurs et les considérations pratiques qui ont découlé des usages de la rétroaction vidéo en recherche et en formation. La rétroaction vidéo est désignée en recherche par sa fonction, qui a évolué au fil de trois générations méthodologiques: 1) stimuler le rappel des pensées interactives du sujet; 2) susciter la prise de conscience du sujet; 3) partager la réflexion-sur-l'action. Après un historique du concept de rappel stimulé, l'auteur indique comment les usages de la rétroaction vidéo propres au traitement de l'information ont porté sur la mémoire des pensées interactives puis sur l'« objectivation clinique », puis ont évolué, récemment, vers un usage intégré et réflexif de formation-recherche au sein du paradigme de la pensée des enseignants.
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 | 0.042 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".