La perception de l’efficacité de six cours du 2e cycle du secondaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cette recherche, les auteurs ont analysé la perception de l’efficacité des cours chez 3 856 élèves du secondaire, 2e cycle. Cent cinquante-et-une classes mixtes (151 professeurs) constituent l’échantillon pour six matières différentes : biologie, chimie et physique en sciences naturelles; économie, géographie et histoire en sciences humaines. La perception de l’efficacité des cours, mesurée selon une échelle Likert, est établie à partir de deux critères du domaine affectif, la satisfaction et l’intérêt, et de deux critères du domaine cognitif, le rendement académique et l’implication intellectuelle. Les cours de biologie sont perçus comme les plus efficaces pour tous les critères. L’histoire, la géographie et la chimie ont les taux les plus faibles d’efficacité. En général, les filles sont plus satisfaites des cours de sciences de la nature et s’y impliquent davantage que les garçons. Toutefois les deux groupes considèrent ces cours comme étant les plus intéressants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".