Parlons sciences ensemble : la place du dialogue dans l’enseignement des sciences au secondaire en contexte minoritaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette communication propose de caractériser la place de l’oral, et plus précisément du dialogue, dans des cours de sciences dans une école secondaire de langue française en milieu francophone minoritaire. Les résultats découlent d’une recherche collaborative entreprise avec trois enseignants de sciences chevronnés qui cherchaient à mieux comprendre le rôle et le potentiel du dialogue exploratoire dans leur enseignement. Les activités analysées par l’équipe révèlent une variété de postures empruntées par les élèves et l’enseignant selon le type d’activité, le but de l’activité et l’ergonomie de la salle de classe. Une discussion sur la place (et l’absence) du dialogue exploratoire et des pistes pour favoriser son utilisation contribue au répertoire d’approches pédagogiques adaptées au milieu minoritaire francophone canadien dans le domaine de l’enseignement des sciences.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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".