Valeurs et modalités de mise en œuvre de la conception universelle de l’apprentissage dans les pays de langue française : une étude de portée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet état de la connaissance de la littérature (appelé étude de portée en français ou scoping review en anglais) s’intéresse aux études empiriques francophones portant sur la Conception universelle de l’apprentissage (CUA) afin de mieux comprendre : (1) les aspects de la CUA pris en considération dans ces études et (2) les facilitateurs et les obstacles identifiés pour la mise en œuvre de la CUA. Les cinq articles identifiés permettent de constater que la mise en œuvre est souvent morcelée, ne s’appuyant pas toujours sur les visées de la CUA ou ne suivant pas tous ses principes. Les recherches identifient également des facilitateurs et des obstacles à la mise en œuvre de la CUA qui relèvent des personnes et des organisations. Pour soutenir l’appropriation, une meilleure prise en compte des motivations des personnels enseignants à s’engager dans la CUA est à envisager.
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 | 0.040 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".