IS REDOING FIRST YEAR OF HIGH-SCHOOL USEFULL? / EST-CE UTILE DE REDOUBLER SA PREMIÈRE ANNÉE DU SECONDAIRE (ÉTUDE DE CAS)?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>At the end of a school year, emotion, self-esteem, knowledge are considered by a teacher to decide whether a student is promoted or not. The aim of the study was to seek the success of students 12- to 14-year-olds who had failed a given course in the first year of high school and were still registered for a higher course in the second year of high school. Students were evaluated by their regular teachers over the years, and report cards were analyzed. Failing students were students with mean marks below 60 p.100 in a topic. No help was given during summertime. Still, students were more likely to achieve success the following year at that higher level, regardless of the topics. Up to 71 p.100 had recovered from their misunderstanding in the second semester of high school the next year. If we consider the less weak students, thus those who had failed year 1 with marks below 60 p.100 but above 49 p.100, nearly 80% of the students had recovered from their misunderstanding in the second semester. This study supports the idea that the relationship to knowledge should change in schools. We believe that intrinsic motivation may need enough time to occur at such an age. We also believe that the strong extrinsic motivation given by the teachers and the school institution of the school under scrutiny is recommended.</p><p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/soc/0736/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it