Comment les enseignants du post secondaire peuvent favoriser la réussite scolaire des étudiants ayant un TDAH ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude a pour but de documenter les perceptions des étudiants ayant un TDAH et des conseillers en services adaptés quant aux pratiques enseignantes favorisant la réussite scolaire de ces étudiants. Des entrevues ont été réalisées auprès de 29 étudiants ayant un TDAH, provenant de cégeps et d’universités québécoises et leurs conseillers en services adaptés (n = 9). Les participants rapportent une variété d’actions favorisant la réussite de ces étudiants telles que des actions liées au soutien visuel, à la compréhension, à l’évaluation, à la gestion du temps, à l’organisation des informations, aux stratégies d’enseignement, et le rapport à l’enseignant. Les résultats mettent de l’avant le rôle de premier plan des enseignants dans la réussite des étudiants ayant un TDAH.
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 | 0.010 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".