MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895585480 · doi:10.1177/0950422218802536

Learning to be enterprising in school through an inquiry-based pedagogy

2018· article· en· W2895585480 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthias Pépin

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustry and Higher Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)EntrepreneurshipPedagogyAction planDisciplineAction researchPlan (archaeology)Event (particle physics)Service (business)SociologyExperiential learningMathematics educationPsychologyPolitical scienceManagementBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the French-speaking province of Québec in Canada, entrepreneurship was officially introduced into the Québec Education Program (QEP) in 2001. Entrepreneurship is viewed there as a learning tool associated with the conduct of entrepreneurial projects; that is, student-led action projects that respond to a community need by creating a good, offering a service or organizing an event. The purpose of this article is to report on an investigation conducted into a school shop at primary school level to document what it means to learn to be enterprising in school. The results show that, to learn to be enterprising (i.e. to learn to plan and implement an action project), pupils have to be fully engaged in the creation of the shop and in the inquiry processes to be conducted. Thus they need to be able to identify problems arising, analyse the environment, devise solutions and implement them. Moreover, learning to be enterprising entails learning through being enterprising. Two main learning points were enabled by the inquiry processes based on the school shop experience: (1) the integration of multiple disciplinary contents from the QEP, and (2) critical reflection on society.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustry and Higher EducationSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207