Le rapport à la littérature d’enseignantes du primaire : développement d’outils didactiques et retombées sur les pratiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le cadre du projet LIBER qui vise à bonifier les pratiques d’enseignement et d’évaluation de la lecture/appréciation d’oeuvres littéraires, nous nous intéressons au rapport que les enseignantes entretiennent avec la littérature. Plusieurs recherches sur le «rapport à…» ont montré qu’il est nécessaire de le considérer afin de faire évoluer les pratiques. Par des entretiens, nous avons questionné les dix enseignantes impliquées dans le projet à propos de cinq dimensions de leur rapport à la littérature. Par une analyse de contenu thématique, nous avons constaté des changements quant à une plus grande intégration de l’oral dans les activités entourant la littérature, l’usage plus marqué de la littérature de jeunesse en classe et du partage plus fréquent des lectures personnelles des enseignantes.
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 | 0.041 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".