L’évaluation d’activités d’éveil aux mathématiques à l’éducation préscolaire : autoévaluation et identification des forces, des besoins et des progrès
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article de recherche vise à approfondir la thématique de l’évaluation lors de la mise en œuvre d’activités d’éveil aux mathématiques. Un regard spécifique est porté aux pratiques évaluatives des enseignantes à l’éducation préscolaire. De manière à documenter les pratiques évaluatives utilisées, en s’appuyant sur une approche quantitative, nous avons eu recours à un devis descriptif impliquant la participation de 54 enseignantes. Par le biais d’un questionnaire autorapporté, nous avons approfondi les réponses des participantes à deux questions traitant de l’acte d’évaluer au préscolaire et interpréter celles-ci au regard du modèle du processus évaluatif. Les résultats obtenus nous amènent à formuler des pistes de recommandation en ce qui a trait aux modalités de formation, d’accompagnement et de soutien des enseignantes du préscolaire dans le cadre de leurs pratiques évaluatives.
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 | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".