MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779037832 · doi:10.4000/pratiques.3775

Survivre au prédicat : le cas du Québec

2017· article· fr· W2779037832 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePratiques · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article fait état de la notion de prédicat au Québec. Depuis une vingtaine d’années, un cadre de grammaire moderne a été adopté par le ministère de l’Éducation dans les programmes de français. En considérant la description de la phrase, cet article retrace d’abord des moments clés de l’introduction de la grammaire nouvelle au primaire et au secondaire dans la succession des programmes officiels. Dans un deuxième temps, la terminologie relative aux constituants de la phrase est examinée dans un échantillon de matériel didactique et de grammaires, faisant ainsi apparaitre l’émergence graduelle de la notion de « prédicat ». Enfin, des exemples tirés d’une recherche en cours illustrent l’utilité des notions de la grammaire moderne, dont celle de prédicat, pour aider les élèves, entre autres, à mieux ponctuer les phrases qu’ils écrivent. La conclusion invite à considérer les conditions d’un changement de pratique en enseignement de la grammaire.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient 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 score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.266 · 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