Dignité humaine et Pensée critique dialogique chez des enfants et des adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans ce texte, nous apportons quelques éléments de définition en regard de la dignité humaine et présentons quelques articles de la Convention sur les droits de l’enfant qui mettent en lumière la notion de dignité. Ensuite, nous introduisons les composantes d’une pensée critique dite « dialogique ». À l’aide de ces composantes, nous avons analysé des discussions d’élèves âgés de 10 à 19 ans qui n’avaient bénéficié d’aucune formation explicite en vue de développer préalablement une pensée critique. Les résultats des analyses montrent que, sur le continuum du processus développemental d’une pensée critique dialogique, qui s’échelonne du simple au complexe, l’épistémologie des adolescents se complexifie de manière peu significative entre la 5e année du primaire et la fin du collégial. Dans la dernière section du texte, nous discutons ces résultats en lien avec des habiletés et des attitudes inhérentes à la dignité humaine.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".