Pratiquer le dialogue philosophique avec les adolescents : comment favoriser une plus grande prise de conscience des apprentissages chez les élèves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La pratique du dialogue philosophique avec les jeunes connait un essor important au niveau international. Or, puisque celle-ci prend régulièrement forme à l’intérieur d’un contexte scolaire, dont l’une des missions est de susciter des apprentissages, il devient précieux d’entreprendre des études visant à documenter ceux effectués par les élèves, dont la conscience qu’ils∙elles en ont. Les études à cet égard, dont celles visant à comparer cette conscience au regard d’une variété de dispositifs, sont inexistantes. C’est ce qui est examiné dans le cadre de cet article, un examen qui conduit à penser que la manière dont sont construites les séquences d’apprentissage peut avoir des répercussions sur la perception que les élèves se font des apprentissages qu’ils effectuent en philosophie.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".