Mise en oeuvre d’un dispositif d’apprentissage dans une perspective d’écriture collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette recherche-action, menée à l’Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Toulouse, étudie l’apport des TICE et de l’apprentissage collaboratif au développement des compétences écrites en anglais. Notre hypothèse est que l’utilisation d’outils multimédias spécifiques permet un meilleur apprentissage de la technique du compte rendu scientifique. Par ailleurs, nous posons qu’un dispositif d’apprentissage intégrant la dimension humaine doit conduire à l’amélioration de la compétence écrite. Afin d’évaluer la qualité de la production écrite, nous avons comparé l’ensemble des comptes rendus produits par les étudiants des groupes expérimentaux et du groupe témoin selon des critères qualitatifs et quantitatifs. Nous présentons ensuite les progrès que nous avons observés sur la courte durée dont nous disposions.
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 | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".