MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765881588 · doi:10.4000/linx.1610

Écrits universitaires et orthographe grammaticale

2015· article· fr· W2765881588 on OpenAlex
Julie Duchesne, Sophie Piron

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLinx · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au Québec, les milieux de l’éducation, la population et les médias s’inquiètent de la piètre qualité du français écrit des étudiants en général et des futurs enseignants en particulier. Les recherches appuient ces impressions communes et montrent que les étudiants du postsecondaire éprouvent des difficultés en français écrit. Plusieurs recherches portant sur les erreurs d’étudiants universitaires en contexte de rédaction ont pointé l’orthographe grammaticale comme étant la catégorie d’erreurs la plus représentée. Toutefois, force est de constater qu’il n’y a pas de consensus en ce qui a trait à la définition de l’orthographe grammaticale. La définition que nous en proposons repose sur l' « hypothèse lexicaliste forte », telle qu'elle est utilisée en morphologie. À partir de cette définition, nous présenterons un classement des règles d'accord et nous en montrerons une application à une analyse de rédactions d’étudiants.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.227 · 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