Enseigner la révision à l'ère des wikis : là où l'on trouve la technologie alors qu'on ne l'attendait plus
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
In academic teaching, there are very few experiences on collaborative wiki revision. In a Quebec university, we experimented upon a wiki revision activity with translation students in their third final year. We specifically chose to revise texts in Wikipedia because its environment shares similarities with the labour market in the language industry and because we believed that the wiki allowed us to achieve the overall objectives of the revision class, such as we define them. Throughout the experience, we monitored the progress of students' revision interventions on Wikipedia texts as well as exchanges taking place between revisees and reviewers. All our research observations were made possible by the convoluted but systematic structure in Wikipedia. Here, we report on the experiment at the Université du Québec en Outaouais and let our academic teaching readers decide whether the exercise is right for them. For us, it was convincing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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