MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211935527 · doi:10.52358/mm.vi7.214

Usage pédagogique de la vidéo et vulgarisation scientifique : Entretien avec Laurent Turcot

2021· article· fr· W3211935527 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Baptiste Campion, Claire Peltier

Bibliographic record

VenueMédiations et médiatisations · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

entretien avec Laurent Turcot vise à cerner la manière dont un enseignant aborde la vidéo dans son activité d’enseignement ainsi que dans une activité de vulgarisation à destination du grand public sur la plateforme YouTube. Cet entretien met l’accent sur la manière dont Laurent Turcot en est venu à la vidéo et aborde la conception, l’écriture, la réalisation et la réception de ses capsules vidéo à vocation pédagogique et de vulgarisation.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: french · design weight: 1554.47 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8T3 · adjacent, not in scope
genre: editorial/commentary
about Canada: no
confidence: low

Interview with a scholar about producing video for teaching and for science popularization on YouTube; dissemination-adjacent commentary rather than a study, and largely framed as educational technology.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: other
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This interview concerns educational video production and science popularization, not research practice.

Grok 4.5T3 · adjacent, not in scope
genre: editorial/commentary
about Canada: no
confidence: medium

Interview/commentary on one educator's pedagogical video and science popularization practice.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMédiations et médiatisationsSame topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207