MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782763631 · doi:10.7202/1047800ar

LECTURE DE TEXTES LATINS ET MITIC FONT BON MÉNAGE : QUELQUES CONSIDÉRATIONS SUR L’ENSEIGNEMENT DU LATIN EN SUISSE ROMANDE

2018· article· fr· W2782763631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antje Kolde

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de recherches en littératie médiatique multimodale · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le Plan d’études romand, qui concerne l’école obligatoire et qui est entré en vigueur dans les cantons de Suisse francophone en 2011, insiste davantage que les plans d’études antérieurs sur la lecture de textes latins, que ce soit en langue originale ou en traduction, et sur le recours aux médias, images et technologies de l’information et de la communication (MITIC). La rencontre avec la littérature latine se trouve grandement facilitée par les MITIC. De fait, en mettant à disposition des élèves tant des aides lexicales et morphologiques que des adaptations de textes latins dans d’autres formes d’expression plus familières tels que films, bandes audios, bandes dessinées ou oeuvres d’art, ou encore en leur permettant d’en créer, les MITIC rapprochent les textes latins des élèves, favorisant leur compréhension générale et leur contextualisation. Outre quelques réflexions théoriques, cette contribution se propose essentiellement de présenter quelques sites et portails liés à l’Antiquité, tout comme de montrer quelques dispositifs didactiques alliant l’étude conjointe de textes latins et de films, de bandes audios, de bandes dessinées et d’oeuvres d’art constituant des adaptations desdits textes.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de recherches en littératie médiatique multimodaleSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207