MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901290272 · doi:10.7202/1053590ar

Quel est le rapport à l’écrit d’enseignants en sciences humaines au collégial?

2018· article· fr· W2901290272 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ginette Bousquet, Louis Desmeules

Bibliographic record

VenueNouveaux cahiers de la recherche en éducation · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsCégep de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mieux connaître le rapport à l’écrit des enseignants est un préalable à des changements de pratiques mobilisant les processus de lecture/écriture des étudiants adéquats. Cela peut servir à dégager des pistes d’intervention susceptibles d’amener des changements dans les pratiques d’accompagnement. L’objectif de cette recherche est de comprendre le rapport à l’écrit des enseignants. Pour répondre à cet objectif, une recherche descriptive a été conduite sous la forme d’une enquête par questionnaire (n=84) et par entrevues (n=13). Les résultats montrent à quel point les enseignants reconnaissent l’importance du développement des compétences à l’écrit de leurs étudiants et permettent d’identifier certaines difficultés dans les pratiques déclarées d’accompagnement des étudiants.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouveaux cahiers de la recherche en éducationSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207