MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586298252 · doi:10.17118/11143/10116

Le rappel du texte au 2e cycle du primaire : une recherche-développement

2017· book-chapter· fr· W2586298252 on OpenAlexaff
Joanie Viau, Isabelle Carignan

Bibliographic record

VenueÉditions de l'Université de Sherbrooke eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le rappel de texte est considr par plusieurs chercheurs comme tant l'une des manires les plus efficaces d'valuer le degr de comprhension en lecture des lves. Cette tche, qui consiste raconter dans ses mots, l'oral ou l'crit, un texte lu ou entendu, sans l'avoir sous les yeux, amne les lves slectionner les informations importantes et les organiser Dans le but d'aider les enseignants enseigner les macroprocessus, un outil intgrant les albums de littrature jeunesse rsistants sera cr. La mthodologie envisage, qui s'inscrit dans une dmarche de recherche-dveloppement, prvoit analyser le contenu des manuels. Par la suite, un questionnaire d'entrevue questions fermes destin connaitre les pratiques de dix enseignants et professionnels de la lecture sera labor et valid. Puis, vingt albums de littrature jeunesse ayant des caractristiques permettant de solliciter les macroprocessus lors de tches de rappel seront slectionns. Des grilles d'observation et d'valuation de rappels de textes seront ensuite labores. Finalement, cet outil sera mis l'essai durant une anne scolaire. Les retombes envisages sont une valuation plus diversifie qui rend compte du rel degr de comprhension en lecture des lves du 2e cycle du primaire et des dispositifs d'enseignement plus varis dans les classes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.243 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉditions de l'Université de Sherbrooke eBooksSame topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207