MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559594130 · doi:10.7202/1037913ar

Les approches inductives au service de l’agentivité épistémique et des finalités éducatives émancipatrices

2016· article· fr· W2559594130 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stéphanie Demers, Charles-Antoine Bachand, Claudia Leblanc

Bibliographic record

VenueApproches inductives Travail intellectuel et construction des connaissances · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Strategies and Epistemologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’École 1 comme institution s’articule autour d’un mandat épistémique dont la finalité ultime est de rendre libre. À l’instar de Kant (1784/1991) et de Reboul (1984), nous avançons que pour arriver à cet état de liberté, il importe pour l’élève de développer et d’exercer son agentivité épistémique. Pour savoir, savoir comment savoir et comment savoir que ce qu’il sait est vrai, l’élève doit disposer d’un pouvoir sur et avec les savoirs et se concevoir comme membre d’une communauté épistémique envers laquelle il se sent redevable, mais qui lui permet dans ses relations symétriques de participer activement à la construction du savoir, et aussi à l’élaboration et à la correction des normes et des règles qui valident son adéquation à la vérité. Ainsi, nous postulons que les approches pédagogiques déductives, ancrées dans la dépendance épistémique, sont peu cohérentes avec les finalités énoncées plus haut, mais qu’à l’inverse, les approches pédagogiques de nature inductive favorisent le développement d’une agentivité épistémique substantive.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.030
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApproches inductives Travail intellectuel et construction des connaissancesSame topicEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesFrench-language works237,207