Conduites d'enseignantes lors de communautés de recherche philosophique pour la mobilisation d’habiletés de pensée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avec la diffusion instantanee d’information au moyen d’Internet, le partage d’opinions diverses et la quantite de fausses nouvelles en constante propagation, le contexte societal n’a jamais ete aussi opportun pour proposer une education qui favorise le developpement de la pensee sous toutes ses formes. Des chercheurs ont explore l’implantation de la communaute de recherche philosophique en salle de classe, ils indiquent que les enseignants sont aptes a modifier leurs pratiques pedagogiques vers un enseignement de la pensee et des habiletes qui la composent (Gagnon et Yergeau, 2016). La presente etude vise a decrire les conduites employees par deux enseignantes du primaire pour mobiliser les habiletes de pensee de leurs eleves lors de communautes de recherche philosophique. Nous avons demande a nos participantes d’expliciter leurs actions lors d’entretiens individuels en plus de faire l’observation de seances de philosophie avec leurs eleves. Nos premiers constats semblent indiquer que les enseignantes sont parfois soucieuses des habiletes de pensee qui se manifestent dans les prises de parole de leurs eleves. Cela mene a leur utilisation consciente de conduites comme la reformulation, le questionnement, l’appel a des exemples et la consideration de points de vue differents. Nous proposerons des pistes pedagogiques.
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".