MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083862949 · doi:10.7202/1070727ar

Motivation et compétence à écrire au primaire : comparaison entre le clavier et le crayon

2020· article· fr· W3083862949 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joane Deneault, Natalie Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l éducation · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’usage du numérique en classe primaire et son potentiel pour soutenir la motivation et la compétence en écriture ont fait l’objet de plusieurs études, mais peu d’entre elles ont comparé les mêmes élèves selon qu’elles·ils écrivent au crayon ou au clavier. Cette étude a pour objectif de comparer la motivation et la performance d’élèves de 2 e , 4 e et 6 e année du primaire (N = 254) dans ces deux conditions. Les élèves ont réalisé deux tâches d’écriture et répondu à un questionnaire évaluant leur motivation. Les scores obtenus sur les indicateurs de motivation (4) et de performance (8) ont été soumis à des tests t pour échantillons appariés. Globalement, les élèves sont plus motivé·e·s pour écrire au clavier, mais leurs performances sont meilleures au crayon. Un portrait détaillé des avantages de ces deux outils d’écriture est brossé en considérant les différents indicateurs et les niveaux scolaires.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.398
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.038 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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