Lire des textes de fiction et des textes informatifs aux élèves du préscolaire et du primaire : analyse des interactions extratextuelles des enseignants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette etude a pour but de comparer les interactions extratextuelles des enseignants du prescolaire et du primaire1 qui font la lecture a voix haute a leurs eleves. Par une methode d’observation structuree, nous les avons observes pendant qu’ils faisaient la lecture d’un texte de fiction et la lecture d’un texte informatif. La complexite de la demande cognitive suscitee par leurs interactions extratextuelles a constitue le principal critere d’analyse selon lequel nous avons etabli des comparaisons. Les resultats demontrent peu de variations entre les interactions extratextuelles des enseignants du prescolaire et du primaire, ce qui mene a conclure qu’ils n’adaptent pas leurs interactions en fonction du niveau de developpement des eleves. Par ailleurs, pour l’ensemble des enseignants, la lecture des textes de fiction amene davantage d’interactions extratextuelles qui suscitent une faible demande cognitive que ne le font les interactions qui accompagnent leur lecture des textes informatifs. Ceci soutient l’importance de varier les genres de textes qu’ils lisent a voix haute aux eleves.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".