Action et langage dans un monde virtuel utilisé à des fins de pratique de la langue | Action and Language in a Virtual World Used for Language Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude s’inscrit dans un contexte de télécollaboration entre des apprenants d’anglais et de français dans un environnement virtuel en 3D - Second Life. Elle s’intéresse plus particulièrement aux relations entre l’utilisation des langues cibles, les activités proposées et l’environnement simulé. À partir d’une analyse qualitative des interactions entre les participants, nous avons défini six catégories d’interaction langage/environnement dans le but de comprendre l’influence de cet environnement sur les pratiques langagières.This study is part of a tele-collaboration project which links learners of English and French in a 3D virtual environment - Second Life. We are particularly interested in the relationship among the use of target languages, the activities and the simulated environment. According to our observation and recording of the interactions, as well as the interviews with participants, we have defined six categories of interactions based on the special virtual environment in order to understand its influence for the language practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".