MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4365809639

L’approche piklérienne et la qualité éducative auprès d’enfants de 0 à 3 ans en contexte de services de garde : état des connaissances

2021· article· fr· W4365809639 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nancy Proulx, Nathalie Bigras, Lise Lemay

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les services de garde éducatifs à l’enfance (SGÉE) jouent un rôle déterminant sur le développement des enfants (OCDE, 2019). Toutefois l’état des connaissances est plus limité concernant les enfants de 0 à 3 ans. Il apparait donc pertinent d’étudier la qualité éducative leur étant offerte. Comme l’approche piklérienne s’intéresse aux enfants de 0 à 3 ans et qu’elle est adoptée par des SGÉE du Québec, cet article présente une revue ciblée de la littérature au sujet de cette approche pédagogique. Trois thèmes d’étude en ressortent : la qualité des interactions, les connaissances, perceptions et croyances des éducatrices, et la relation privilégiée entre l’éducatrice et l’enfant. Bien que ces études abordent de façon parcellaire la qualité éducative, les résultats permettent de croire que certains éléments pourraient contribuer à rehausser la qualité éducative en SGÉE. Toutefois, des études plus approfondies de la qualité éducative dans le contexte de cette approche pédagogique s’avèrent essentielles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.305
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicHealth, Medicine and Society→French-language works237,207→