Les jumelages interculturels en classe de FLS : des tâches et des contextes pour des tâches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le manque de contacts entre les adultes immigrants apprenant le français langue seconde (FLS) et les francophones n’est favorable ni à l’intégration des immigrants dans la société, ni au développement de leur compétence communicative en FLS. Les jumelages interculturels sont des activités d’apprentissage qui peuvent répondre aux besoins des apprenants dans ce contexte. S’appuyant sur des publications récentes et sur l’expérience des auteures en matière de jumelages interculturels, cet article examine différentes modalités selon lesquelles jumelages et tâches peuvent s’articuler dans un cours de FLS. D’une part, les jumelages interculturels sont souvent considérés par les enseignants comme des tâches en soi. D’autre part, ils peuvent offrir des contextes sociaux pour réaliser des tâches pédagogiques ou encore des projets collectifs. Les pistes et les exemples présentés dans cet article pourront aider les enseignants de FLS à planifier des jumelages riches en apprentissages langagiers et interculturels.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".