Réflexion sur la pertinence de s’intéresser aux stratégies d’étude des étudiants ayant un trouble d’apprentissage ou un TDA/H afin de favoriser leur réussite scolaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis les deux dernières décennies, le nombre d’étudiants collégiaux ayant un trouble d’apprentissage (TA) ou un trouble du déficit de l’attention avec ou sans hyperactivité (TDA/H) a connu une augmentation fulgurante et il apparait de plus en plus urgent de se préoccuper davantage de leur réussite scolaire. L’un des principaux obstacles à la réussite identifiés par ces étudiants est « le manque de technique pour étudier » (Wolforth et Roberts, 2010, p. 28). Cet article cherche à démontrer la nécessité de s’intéresser de près aux stratégies d’études employées par les étudiants collégiaux qui ont un TA ou TDA/H afin de s’assurer que ces derniers utilisent des stratégies d’études efficaces.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".