Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce numéro est le premier des quatre numéros de la revue Les Annales de QPES consacrés au Xe colloque de Questions de Pédagogies dans l’Enseignement Supérieur (QPES) qui s’est tenu à Brest en juin 2019. Ce colloque dont le thème était « (Faire) coopérer pour (faire) apprendre ? » a suscité moult réflexions sur le pourquoi et le comment coopérer et collaborer entre nous, avec les étudiants, à l’intérieur de l’institution et entre les institutions. Cet intérêt pour la coopération et la collaboration s’inscrit tout à fait dans les courants sociocognitif et socioconstructivisme sur lesquels s’appuient en grande partie les transformations pédagogiques actuelles. Ces deux courants considèrent en effet que l’apprenant construit et modifie ses connaissances à travers des conflits sociocognitifs, et que ce cheminement n’est possible que si l’apprenant est actif intellectuellement, qu’il interagit avec les autres et qu’il agit sur son milieu (Ménard et Saint-Pierre, 2014).
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.145 | 0.101 |
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".