L'engagement de l'élève, de l'étudiante ou de l'étudiant: construit revisité selon une perspective socioculturelle.
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
This article examines the literature on student engagement in the classroom or school in order to suggest a socio-culturally inspired definition of this construct, one that emphasizes participation in context rather than defining it along three or four dimensions. Six nuclei of activities are distinguished, three at the micro level and three at the macro level: 1) Attention to the teacher's discourse; 2) Direct interaction with the learning object; 3) Interaction with peers to carry out a project, understand the meaning of a question or a problem, explore it further, or even solve it in a learning or knowledge-building community; 4) School attendance; 5) Expected or constructive contribution to the dynamics of a group; 6) Contribution to the environment, to a local or external community. To illustrate these, the PERISCOPE network’s repertory of publications was searched, and 61 publications were selected according to independent criteria. Although the manifestations of student engagement are likely to multiply and diversify, the six activity nuclei have thus passed a first validation test.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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