Le Profil fonctionnel : les apports de la neuropsychologie à l’adaptation scolaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente une description de règles régissant la construction d’outils de mesure des styles, à partir d’une révision des écrits portant sur les styles d’apprentissage. Ces règles sont, par la suite, examinées à la lumière des recherches les plus récentes de la neuropsychologie. Il en ressort trois principes clés : d’abord, il est essentiel d’éviter toute typologie qui enferme dans une illusion de permanence, parce que le style est vivant, donc flexible et malléable; ensuite, l’émotion est le moteur guidant le choix des modalités de résolution de problèmes; enfin, la rigidité d’un style, appelée surdominance, est indicatrice non pas d’un style particulier, mais bien d’un blocage émotif. L’auteure conclut qu’en cas de surdominance il faut rassurer, alors qu’en cas de dominance il importe d’aider l’apprenant à optimiser ses choix stratégiques par une prise de conscience qui peut en même temps le sensibiliser à d’autres façons de procéder.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".