Le rapport à l’écriture extrascolaire et scolaire : une étude menée auprès d’adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Plusieurs recherches axées sur le rapport à l’écriture ont mis en évidence l’importance de certaines dimensions dans le processus d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de l’écriture. L’étude que nous présentons, basée sur l’expérience d’élèves de 7e année (de 11 à 14 ans) en milieu scolaire ou extrascolaire, nous a amenées à envisager trois idéaux-types de rapport à l’écriture qui correspondent à différents modes d’interprétation de ce phénomène pluridimensionnel et instable. Ces idéaux-types sont susceptibles d’ouvrir des pistes de manière à ce que le Sujet et son identité soient pris en compte dans la didactique de l’écriture. Abstract Several studies on the relationship students establish with writing have highlighted the importance of certain dimensions in the processes of the teaching and learning of writing. The present study, which examines the relationship with writing developed by learners in a Grade 7 class (11 to 14 years old), both in school and extraschool contexts, has led us to conceptualise three ideal types of relationship with writing, each of which corresponds to different modes of interpretation of this multidimensional and unstable phenomenon. These ideal types are likely to open new ways forward so that the Subject and her or his identity are taken into account in the teaching of writing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".