Modalités et scénarios d’interaction dans des hypermédias d’apprentissage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose de distinguer deux niveaux dans la conception d'un outil pédagogique multimédia interactif: celui des modalités d'interaction et celui du scénario d'interaction. Les modalités d'interaction concernent les aspects concrets et matériels de l'interaction de l'utilisateur avec la machine; a priori, rien de spécifique ici au domaine des apprentissages. Le scénario d'interaction concerne les aspects pédagogiques de l'interaction de l'apprenant avec un contenu d'enseignement; a priori, rien de spécifique ici au support utilisé. Le texte illustre la distinction entre ces niveaux en montrant d'abord, à partir d'éléments de la documentation empirique, les effets que peuvent avoir des options prises à chaque niveau sur l'activité de l'utilisateur-apprenant; puis, à partir de leur expérience de concepteurs de cédéroms, les auteurs apportent des exemples de solutions de conception.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".