MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114423186 · doi:10.7202/044608ar

Recherche scientifique et enquête policière, une analogie didactique1

2010· article· fr· W2114423186 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Serge Larivée, Daniel Fortier, François Filiatrault

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de l’Université de Moncton · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsCégep de Saint-LaurentCollège Lionel GroulxUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En vue d’attirer les élèves vers des carrières scientifiques, les auteurs proposent de leur faire lire des romans policiers dans le cadre des cours de français et de littérature. L’article comprend deux parties. Dans la première, les parentés entre la démarche scientifique et l’enquête policière sont mises en évidence. Dans la deuxième partie, on propose d’initier les adolescents aux critiques littéraires qui se sont donné pour mission de vérifier si les coupables identifiés par les détectives de romans policiers célèbres sont les vrais coupables. Cet exercice permet de développer un esprit critique et un sain scepticisme face aux théories auxquelles ils seront initiés tout au long de leur curriculum scolaire.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de l’Université de MonctonSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207