MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2822205361 · doi:10.5565/rev/jtl3.739

L’orthographe des homophones : quelles difficultés pour les élèves du secondaire?

2018· article· fr· W2822205361 on OpenAlex
Ménaïc Champoux

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyHomophoneLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article rend compte des résultats obtenus lors d’une recherche descriptive visant à faire le portrait des principales difficultés rencontrées par les élèves du secondaire relativement à l’orthographe des homophones, et cela, à travers différents angles d’analyse. Dans cette recherche, nous avons fait ressortir les erreurs d’homophonie commises le plus fréquemment par les élèves étudiés et avons ensuite analysé chacune des formes homophones problématiques en fonction de critères variés tels que leur fréquence lexicale, leur appartenance à une catégorie grammaticale particulière ou encore la structure syntaxique qui les sous-tend.Les résultats révélés par notre analyse montrent, entre autres, que ce sont principalement les finales verbales en /E/ qui posent problème aux élèves du secondaire, suivies par les formes homophones s’est/c’est/ces/ses et se/ce. De plus, de nombreux facteurs semblent expliquer la prépondérance de certaines erreurs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · 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