MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018889242 · doi:10.1522/rhe.v4i2.955

Améliorer son texte grâce aux cercles d’auteurs : regard sur la compétence à réviser d’élèves de 6e année

2020· article· fr· W3018889242 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Élaine Turgeon, Ophélie Tremblay, Brigitte Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue hybride de l éducation · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsCommission Scolaire des Hautes RivièresUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le cadre d’une recherche-action, nous avons expérimenté le dispositif des cercles d’auteurs auprès d’élèves du primaire. L’intention de cet article est de décrire les pratiques de rétroaction de cinq élèves pendant un cercle d’auteurs et leur impact sur la révision de texte. Pour y parvenir, nous avons filmé une séance de cercle d’auteurs et analysé le comportement des élèves ainsi que les versions successives de leur texte. Cela a permis de produire une description fine des pratiques de rétroaction et de constater que la majorité des élèves ont réussi à améliorer leur texte grâce à ces dernières.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.332
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue hybride de l éducationSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207