Évolution des connaissances de futurs orthopédagogues en formation initiale sur l’évaluation et
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alors que les comptences valuer et intervenir auprs des lves qui prsentent des difficults en lecture sont au coeur de la pratique orthopdagogique, de nombreuses connaissances sont ncessaires leur dploiement. Cette recherche exploratoire et descriptive vise dresser un portrait de l' volution des connaissances dclares lies la pratique (valuationintervention) de futurs orthopdagogues en lien avec les difficults en lecture pendant leur formation universitaire. Les rsultats montrent qu'aprs avoir accompagn un lve en difficult dans le cadre d'une clinique universitaire en orthopdagogie (formation pratique), les tudiants nomment un plus grand nombre de connaissances en lien avec les outils, moyens et stratgies d' valuation et d'intervention sur la comprhension et l'identification des mots en lecture. Ces rsultats mettent en vidence l'apport de la formation pratique, qui amne les tudiants dclarer des connaissances avec plus de prcision. Ils seront galement discuts en fonction des contenus prsents dans le cadre de la formation initiale universitaire.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".