MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388640008 · doi:10.3138/cmlr-2023-1000

Portrait des pratiques d’enseignants utilisant la littérature de jeunesse bi-/plurilingue dans les écoles élémentaires de langue française en Ontario

2023· article· en· W4388640008 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mélissande Trottin, Joël Thibeault

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Context (archaeology)PortraitSociologyClass (philosophy)PedagogyHumanitiesPsychologyComputer scienceArtLinguisticsVisual artsHistoryPhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing number of studies are interested in the various advantages connected to the use of bi-/multilingual children’s literature in class. However, there is still little research that concretely describes how teachers set up practices with the help of this medium. This article presents the results of a multi-case study whose objective is to describe the practices stated by teachers in the Franco-Ontarian context who use bi-/multilingual children’s literature. By means of a questionnaire on the use of this literature and a series of semi-directed interviews, we had access to various practices of three teachers working in elementary schools. More specifically, they described to us, via the bi-/multilingual books that they chose, their ways of implementing three key stages in reading: pre-reading, reading, and post-reading. The results of this research show, in particular, that teachers rely on practices already experienced during the reading of monolingual literature, but that they also create new ones to highlight the bi-/multilingual nature of the works they use.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207