Le savoir-apprendre expérientiel dans le contexte du modèle de David Kolb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article traite de l'analyse du fonctionnement cognitif dans la réussite ou l'échec d'un apprentissage en contexte d'autoformation au traitement de texte. Les auteurs prennent pour cadre de référence le modèle d'apprentissage expérientiel de Kolb (1984). Cinq modes de fonctionnement cognitif (exploratoire, réfléchi, abstractif, vérificatoire et gestionnel) spécifiés chacun selon trois dimensions (attitudes, conduites cognitives, conduites de gestion) définissent le savoir-apprendre expérientiel. L'analyse des protocoles comportementaux des deux cas d'apprentissage, l'un réussi, l'autre échoué, met en lumière la possibilité et la pertinence de distinguer les cinq modes de fonctionnement, leur importance relative dans la réussite de l'apprentissage et de savoir quand et comment les mettre en oeuvre.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".