Une approche instrumentale de l’éducation aux débats socio-scientifiques en ligne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
De notre point de vue, l’enseignement en ligne est par essence une activité de collaboration médiatisée, plus encore lorsqu’il s’appuie sur une pédagogie active et met en scène les interactions entre étudiants. Les outils dont disposent les enseignants sont multiples, parfois complexes et s’organisent en système qu’il faut pouvoir analyser pour comprendre une activité tel qu'un débat en ligne. Dans cet article nous proposons l’analyse d’une telle situation dans le cadre de l’approche instrumentale (Lonchamp, 2012; Rabardel et Beguin, 2005; Rabardel, 1995) afin de montrer comment la notion de compétence, telle qu’elle est proposée dans ce cadre, peut permettre de penser l’alignement entre les activités pédagogiques, les compétences visées et l’évaluation de 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 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 | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.005 |
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".