MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387327713 · doi:10.37571/2023.0103

Réviser la syntaxe avec la phrase de base et les manipulations syntaxiques : le cas des scriptrices et scripteurs avancés

2023· article· fr· W4387327713 on OpenAlex
Katrine Roussel, Boivin Marie-Claude

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueDidactique · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les erreurs de syntaxe étant nombreuses dans les textes des élèves du secondaire, nous avons mené une étude de cas pour mieux comprendre leur processus de révision à cet égard. Seize scriptrices et scripteurs avancés ont révisé deux textes en verbalisant leurs stratégies. Le codage de leurs stratégies de révision a permis, notamment, de décrire leur utilisation de la phrase de base et des manipulations syntaxiques. Les résultats indiquent que ces outils d’analyse syntaxique sont peu exploités par les scriptrices et scripteurs avancés et rarement appliqués dans la phrase. Cela dit, les corrections associées au recours à ces outils sont généralement adéquates. Les implications pour la didactique de l’écriture et de la grammaire au secondaire sont discutées.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.273 · 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