Processus de contextualisation et développement de la compétence scripturale de justification d’élèves du premier cycle du secondaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une recherche doctorale qualitative et exploratoire portant sur l’apprentissage de l’écriture de justifications en classe de français chez des élèves plurilingues de 12 à 14 ans a révélé des liens entre la contextualisation qu’effectue un élève d’une situation d’écriture et sa manière d’élaborer le propos de sa justification. En effet, selon que l’élève tienne compte des paramètres de la situation fictive d’écriture ou qu’il focalise plutôt son attention sur les exigences scolaires, il parviendra plus ou moins bien à tenir compte de la dimension dialogique inhérente au discours justificatif. Cet article illustre ces liens à partir d’extraits d’entretiens et met en évidence des besoins d’apprentissage liés à ce processus de contextualisation qui, s’il est bien mené, soutient l’élève dans le développement de sa compétence scripturale de justification.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".