Les interventions des parents en lecture et l’autonomie des lecteurs débutants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif du projet est d’analyser les interventions de parents lorsqu’ils écoutent lire leur enfant en première année du primaire. Plus précisément, il s’agit de comparer les interventions de parents dont les enfants réussissent en lecture avec celles de parents qui ont un enfant en difficulté. Ce sont les interventions qui favorisent l’auto-correction par l’enfant qui font l’objet de notre étude. Quarante dyades parent/enfant (20 enfants forts en lecture et 20 enfants faibles) ont servi de sujets. Chaque dyade a été enregistrée pendant une séance de lecture de 30 minutes. Les résultats montrent que, lors d’une méprise, les parents d’enfants forts en lecture, comparativement aux parents d’enfants faibles, attendent plus souvent la fin d’une unité sémantique avant d’intervenir. Cependant, en ce qui a trait aux blocages, les interventions des parents des deux groupes ne sont pas significativement différentes. L’analyse révèle enfin qu’il existe une relation significative entre le nombre d’autocorrections fait par l’enfant et la nature des interventions des parents.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".