Le transfert des apprentissages et la réforme de l’éducation au Québec : quelques mises au point
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif du présent article est d’examiner le discours de certains pédagogues de langue française concernant la notion de transfert et de faire la démonstration que la conception véhiculée par ces auteurs est, à plusieurs égards, contraire aux données issues des recherches en psychologie. Il en ressort que ces auteurs restreignent souvent la définition du transfert à ses formes les plus improbables et négligent, dans leurs propositions de réforme des pratiques d’enseignement, deux autres paramètres liés à l’existence du transfert : l’acquisition et la rétention des apprentissages. En véhiculant des conceptions erronées et en négligeant l’existence du phénomène de transfert vertical, ces auteurs proposent des pratiques pédagogiques qui favorisent les meilleurs élèves au détriment de ceux éprouvant des difficultés.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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".