MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193149276 · doi:10.53967/cje-rce.v44i2.4623

Lien entre l’engagement des enfants âgés de 4-5 ans dans leurs apprentissages et des profils de la qualité des interactions en centre de la petite enfance

2021· article· fr· W3193149276 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Caroline Bouchard, Stéphanie Duval, Anne-Sophie Parent, Christelle Robert-Mazaye, Nathalie Bigras

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À l’aide d’un devis mixte, cet article vise à dégager des profils de la qualité des interactions en centre de la petite enfance (CPE) et à les mettre en relation avec l’engagement des enfants de 4-5 ans dans leurs apprentissages. La qualité des interactions a été observée auprès de 15 groupes, au moyen du Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Puis, les éducatrices de ces groupes (N = 15) ont participé à des entretiens semi-dirigés. L’observation de l’engagement des enfants dans leurs apprentissages a été effectuée auprès de 108 enfants (n = 54 filles), à partir de l’Individualized Classroom Assessment Scoring System (inCLASS). Les résultats dévoilent trois profils de la qualité des interactions, dont l’un d’eux se démarque sur le plan du soutien à l’apprentissage. Toutefois, aucun de ces profils n’est associé à l’engagement des enfants dans leurs apprentissages. Mots-clés : engagement, apprentissages, Individualized Classroom Assessment Scoring System, inCLASS, enfants de 4-5 ans, centre de la petite enfance, qualité des interactions, Classroom Assessment Scoring System, CLASS

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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207