L’agir ensemble en contexte d’école inclusive : qu’en dit la littérature scientifique récente ? 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notre travail part du constat d’un manque de clarté dans la définition de l’école inclusive et, plus précisément, d’une de ses composantes importantes, « l’agir ensemble ». Une recension de la littérature scientifique récente, francophone et anglophone, permet d’analyser l’usage qui en est fait. Cette recension réalisée à partir de textes scientifiques issus de bases de données reconnues (ERIC, Medline, PsycINFO et SocINDEX, CAIRN) a permis d’identifier 26 textes qui abordent « l’agir ensemble » et l’école inclusive. L’analyse de ces derniers confirme qu’ils ne sont que très rarement traités en parallèle et que les travaux récents continuent à les faire cohabiter, le plus souvent sans les définir, alors même qu’ils relèvent de paradigmes différents.
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 | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".