MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734392044 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.2888

La compétence : entre le savoir agir et l’agir réel. Perspective de l’énaction

2017· article· fr· W2734392044 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Domenico Masciotra

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Representations and Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le cognitivisme localise les phénomènes mentaux (conscience, connaissances, émotions, etc.) dans le cerveau-esprit dans lequel fonctionne une compétence (= savoir agir) qui mobilise ou transfère d’une situation à l’autre les savoirs qui y sont emmagasinés. Dans cette perspective, une personne compétente se comprend par le cumul de savoirs et de compétences décontextualisés. Par contraste, la perspective de l’énaction localise les phénomènes mentaux dans l’entièreté de la personne en action et en situation (PAS), c’est-à-dire dans l’agir réel de la personne en contexte réel. La compétence se comprend alors comme un agir réel qui est à la fois corporel, intentionnel, mental, spatio-temporel, situationnel et dont les fonctions essentielles sont : se disposer, se situer, se positionner et (se) réaliser. Nous argumentons que l’agir réel, qui fonctionne et se développe en situation, traduit mieux ce qu’est une personne compétente que les savoirs et compétences qu’elle accumulerait hors situation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.036
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicSocial Representations and IdentityFrench-language works237,207