MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775192254 · doi:10.3917/cdle.044.0147

Interroger Ricœur et les sciences cognitives pour enrichir les pratiques d’éducation morale

2018· article· fr· W2775192254 on OpenAlex
Diane Laflamme

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCarrefours de l éducation · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)Université du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les travaux empiriques des dernières décennies en sciences cognitives et en psychologie morale ont permis d’identifier des processus qui s’enclenchent automatiquement et qui ont un effet direct et instantané sur le comportement humain et sur le jugement moral. Ce discours constitue un défi pour les démarches d’éducation morale qui proposent des apprentissages qui font surtout appel à des processus conscients. On trouve chez Paul Ricœur une phénoménologie du volontaire et de l’involontaire ainsi qu’une phénoménologie de l’homme capable qui peuvent aider les éducateurs à relever ce défi. En prenant appui non seulement sur la théorie de Ricœur sur l’attestation de la capacité éthique mais aussi sur deux modélisations issues de la recherche empirique en sciences cognitives et en psychologie morale, il devient possible de proposer de nouvelles stratégies pour enrichir les pratiques d’éducation morale.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.112 · 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