MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389153991 · doi:10.1522/rhe.v7i3.1539

Les soutiens et les formations à la prise de notes offerts dans les cégeps au Québec

2023· article· fr· W4389153991 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Audrey Pépin, Loïc Pulido, Florent Biao

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue hybride de l éducation · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À l’entrée au Cégep, la capacité à prendre des notes devient primordiale pour la réussite, car les cours sont plus denses et vont plus vite. Cet article interroge la manière dont les cégeps s’y prennent pour soutenir le développement des compétences de prise de notes de leurs étudiantes et de leurs étudiants. Pour cela, un portrait des soutiens à la prise de notes offerts dans les 47 cégeps publics a été dressé par la consultation des sites Web des cégeps et de quelques personnes porteuses de dossiers pour approfondir les informations. Les résultats montrent que les cégeps semblent peu nombreux à offrir des ateliers ou du matériel pour soutenir la prise de notes. Lorsqu’ils le font, la manière dont ils procèdent est contestée au regard des recherches antérieures.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0210.061
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.640
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.081 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue hybride de l éducationSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207