MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412792326 · doi:10.37571/2025.0105

Enseignement scientifique et éducation à la citoyenneté dans le système éducatif français : faut-il autoriser ou interdire le glyphosate ?

2025· article· fr· W4412792326 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDidactique · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans une perspective de socialisation démocratique, l’Éducation au Développement Durable, présente dans les programmes du système éducatif français (ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, 2019), relève parfois de Questions Socialement Vives. Cet article propose une analyse didactique d’une séquence qui met au travail le problème de « l’autorisation ou l’interdiction du glyphosate ». Notre recherche s’attache particulièrement à l’éducation à la citoyenneté dans une finalité politique pour des élèves de 17-18 ans, en enseignement scientifique. La démarche est innovante dans la mesure où elle mobilise une matrice problématique, un nouveau modèle destiné aux enseignant·es conçu comme un outil didactique possible pour s’attaquer aux problèmes pernicieux (Chauvigné et Fabre, 2021). L’outil testé révèle des manifestations de l’esprit critique des élèves à la fois dans l’argumentation et l’épaisseur du problème.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it