Pratiques déclarées de conseillers pédagogiques québécois quant à la transmission des connaissances issues de la recherche liées à l’enseignement du lexique au primaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pratiques déclarées de conseillers pédagogiques québécois quant à la transmission des connaissances issues de la recherche liées à l'enseignement du lexique au primaire Formation et profession 32(2) 2024 • ésumé L' enseignement du lexique au primaire présente certains écueils (ex., échanges spontanés, sans consolidation des apprentissages).De là émerge un questionnement relatif à l'accès des enseignants aux connaissances issues de la recherche (CIR) dans ce domaine.En raison du rôle des conseillers pédagogiques (CP) à cet effet, nous rapportons les résultats d'une enquête par questionnaire portant sur les pratiques déclarées de 39 CP québécois concernant la transmission des CIR sur le lexique auprès des enseignants du primaire.Nous soulignons les pratiques jugées efficaces (ex., pratiques collaboratives) et lacunaires (ex., recours peu fréquent à des experts) par la recherche afin d' enrichir la transmission des connaissances dans les milieux de formation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".