MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298626969 · doi:10.4000/trema.7679

Voix et voies des enseignants du Programme de langues internationales de l’Ontario

2022· article· fr· W4298626969 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura Ambrosio, Lesya Alexandra Granger, Brigitte Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueTréma · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La politique linguistique au Canada comprend les langues autochtones et les deux langues officielles du Canada – le français et l'anglais. Toutefois, l'éducation est de juridiction provinciale. Le Programme de langues internationales (PLI) du ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario offre la possibilité aux élèves d'étudier plus de 75 langues. Cet article présente un aperçu historique des politiques linguistiques canadiennes et du PLI, une recherche sur les perspectives des enseignants du PLI et une discussion sur les initiatives relatives à l'enseignement des langues, dont celles développées en réponse à la pandémie de COVID-19.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Qualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther · Empirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrémaSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207