Contribution à la compréhension du concept de la participation: une analyse lexicométrique.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of the paper is to explore the use of the concept of participation among scholars affiliated with the réseau PÉRISCOPE (Plateforme Échange, Recherche et Intervention sur la SCOlarité : Persévérance et réussitE), advocates of the activity theory (Engeström, 1987-2015 ; Vygotsky, 1978) via a transversal analysis. Scientific literature offered via this research network database between 2015 and 2019 constitute the datas from which agents’ activity is examined in their own context (class, school, community, etc.). In order to identify the different uses and understandings of the concept of the participation among these scholars, a lexicometric analysis was performed. This methodology is actually based on linguistic and is wielded by different historical approaches as history of ideas, history of concepts and discourse analysis. It appears that the notion of students’ engagement stands out in the corpus, which supports the scientific interpretation of the notion of participation that gives way to engagement. Moreover, the réseau PÉRISCOPE scientific activities generated a renewed interest for specific themes of research such as the participation, school dropout, school perseverance, and academic results. Our analysis suggests also that the scientific literature on participation tends to have a peculiar focus on teens. Finally, actions associated with students contribute to nuance and to detail scholars’ understanding of the concept of participation in educational context. Linguistic associations’ analysis of this corpus constitutes a key instrument for a better insight into the use and mobilization of the concept of the participation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it