Discussion académique sur le New London Group et les multilittératies : réflexions de chercheurs francophones et perspectives contemporaines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article est une réflexion posée par quatre chercheurs sur le concept des multilittératies et ayant comme point de départ le manifeste du New London Group (NLG, 1996). Il a été proposé à quatre chercheurs en didactique des langues et du français de lire ou de relire le texte fondateur du New London Group pour en discuter autour de questions préétablies, inspirées des problématiques abordées par le manifeste. Cet article, qui s’inspire du modèle de la conversation académique, fait la synthèse des réflexions des quatre participants et s’organise autour des thématiques suivantes : la réception du manifeste, son apport, la clarification du concept de multilittératies et les perspectives de recherche en enseignement des langues et du français, avec un retour critique sur le texte. L’article se conclut par une réflexion prospective sur les avenues à explorer dans le domaine des multilittératies.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".