MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937556130 · doi:10.3917/rdid.021.0039

L’oral « pour soi » : tactiques automédiatrices pour l’élaboration de justifications écrites

2016· article· fr· W2937556130 on OpenAlex
Marie‐Hélène Forget

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches en didactiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La conduite de justification vise à faire valoir le bienfondé d’un propos aux yeux d’interlocuteurs. Cette conduite dialogique s’élabore le plus souvent au sein d’interactions orales qui régulent aussi bien sa forme que son contenu. Une recherche a donc été conduite afin de connaitre les moyens qu’emprunte l’élève pour pallier l’absence de médiation sociale lors de l’écriture de justifications en classe de français au secondaire québécois. Les résultats montrent que les élèves font usage de tactiques automédiatrices qui prennent la forme d’un oral intérieur et permettent, dans une certaine mesure, de résoudre divers problèmes liés à l’élaboration du propos, à sa formulation et à l’absence du destinataire.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.254 · 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