Le rapport à l’écrit des élèves : focalisation sur la dimension métascripturale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente une partie des résultats obtenus au cours d’une recherche visant, à travers un dispositif appelé Itinéraires (Colognesi, 2015), le développement de la compétence scripturale (Dabène, 1991) dans ses trois composantes des élèves de 10 à 12 ans. Nous approfondissons ici la dimension métascripturale du rapport à l’écrit en suivant de manière fine quatre élèves tout au long du dispositif. Nous montrons ainsi le rôle des médiations métacognitives amenées par l’enseignant lors des tâches de (ré)écriture de textes. L’enjeu est, d’une part, de mettre en évidence comment les médiations métacognitives des enseignants amènent les jeunes scripteurs à développer les habiletés métascripturales et, d’autre part, de quelle manière cette composante agit sur l’évolution globale du rapport à l’écrit.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".