Le forum de coélaboration de connaissances : source d’inspiration et de soutien à la rédaction d’un récit en cinq temps aux 2e et 3e cycles du primaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Forum de coélaboration de connaissances (FCC) est un outil de communication asynchrone qui permet l’appropriation de connaissances par la lecture et l’écriture de notes exprimant la pensée (Catel, 2001). L’article présente les résultats de l’apport de ce dispositif d’écriture collaborative pour soutenir l’énonciation d’idées lors de la rédaction individuelle d’un récit en cinq temps chez des élèves du primaire. Ces résultats, obtenus dans le cadre d’une recherche-action, tendent à mettre en lumière le potentiel d’une écriture collaborative soutenue par le FCC pour fournir des idées aux élèves lorsqu’ils sont ensuite soumis à une tâche individuelle d’écriture.
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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".