Description et comparaison de la socioconstruction des connaissances dans trois contextes d’apprentissage différents du milieu scolaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’étude décrit et compare la socioconstruction des connaissances dans trois contextes scolaires d’apprentissage. Elle s’appuie sur les concepts clés du socioconstructivisme. Chaque interaction est décrite sous trois dimensions linguistique, sociocognitive et socio‐émotionnelle. L’étude décrit et compare la socioconstruction des connaissances sous les angles de l’égalité de la participation, du type sociocognitif et du climat socioémotionnel. On observe qu’elle est plus présente dans l’environnement où les interactants communiquent par écrit, sans présence physique et de façon asynchrone; elle est moins marquée là où les interactants sont présents physiquement ou communiquent par vidéoconférence. Favoriser l’expression d’opinions et traiter les désaccords pour augmenter les consensus amélioreraient la socioconstruction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".