Participation and Attitudes: An Exploratory Look into the Current Ontario French as a Second Language Program at the Secondary School Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente une étude sur les perceptions et les attitudes des intervenants clés tels que les élèves, les parents et les enseignants dans le programme de FLS de l’Ontario, et les impacts potentiels que ces attitudes pourraient avoir sur la participation future à l’apprentissage du FLS dans les écoles secondaires de la province. Il sont également examinées certaines pratiques d’enseignement et d’apprentissage dominantes en relation avec le développement des programmes de FLS en Ontario. Plus précisément, l’objectif de l’article est de répondre aux trois questions suivantes : Comment le programme actuel de FLS de l’Ontario est-il perçu par certains intervenants clés ? Qu’est-ce qui peut influencer ces perceptions ? Quelles sont certaines des implications possibles pour l’avenir du FLS en Ontario, surtout en ce qui concerne la participation ? Les données analysées dans cet article proviennent des questionnaires qu’ont remplis les élèves, les parents et les enseignants de FLS. Ce travail de terrain a été effectué dans six écoles secondaires de trois conseils scolaires de l’Ontario, dont deux étaient catholiques et l’autre public.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".