Effets potentiels d’une intervention interdisciplinaire en sciences et en arts sur la construction de concepts scientifiques d’enfants de maternelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les enfants développent très tôt des représentations sur différents phénomènes pour expliquer le monde autour d’eux, souvent inadéquates ou incomplètes. L’intervention précoce permettrait de favoriser la compréhension de concepts par une approche peu étudiée au niveau préscolaire : l’interdisciplinarité. Notre étude qualitative visait à explorer les effets d’une intervention interdisciplinaire en sciences et en arts sur la construction de concepts scientifiques de dix-sept enfants d’une classe de maternelle, en particulier en lien avec la lumière et les phénomènes associés. Les données ont été recueillies à l’aide de dessins et d’entretiens semi-dirigés avant et après l’intervention, soit quatre activités interdisciplinaires d’une heure. Les résultats tendent à démontrer que l’intervention favorise efficacement la construction de concepts scientifiques chez la majorité des participants.
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 | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".