MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153132903 · doi:10.7202/1004338ar

De la dramatique d’usage de soi à l’usage dramatique de soi : une approche ergologique de la réussite et de l’échec dans l’apprentissage au travers de la question du corps-soi

2011· article· fr· W2153132903 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pierre Usclat

Bibliographic record

VenueÉducation et francophonie · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’objet de cet article est de soumettre la réussite et l’échec dans l’apprentissage aux concepts majeurs de l’ergologie. À partir des éléments centraux de l’approche allostérique permettant de cerner ce qui se joue dans le fait d’apprendre, nous mettrons à jour la dynamique de la transformation et de la déstabilisation qui impliquent inconfort et dissonance dans l’apprentissage. Pour assumer ces derniers, et donc réussir, nous poserons que l’apprenant doit faire usage de lui au travers de sa confiance et de sa motivation. Usage de lui, confiance et motivation que nous entendrons dans une affinité avec les concepts ergologiques de dramatique d’usage de soi et de corps-soi. À ce titre, l’apprentissage et la réussite en son cours nous apparaîtront être de l’ordre de l’activité. Ce sera alors l’occasion de proposer une analyse de l’échec comme usage dramatique de soi. Et, dans ce droit fil, restera ouverte la question de ce qu’il est possible de proposer pour retrouver la dynamique des dramatiques d’usage de soi, et ce plus fondamentalement que les remédiations d’ordre cognitif qui sont d’ordinaire proposées en regard de l’échec.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉducation et francophonieSame topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchFrench-language works237,207