MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pratiques déclarées d’enseignantes de première année du primaire auprès d’élèves immigrant-es qui sont en apprentissage du français : quelle place pour une éducation inclusive ?

2025· article· fr· W4417482542 on OpenAlexaff
Josée Charette, David Croteau

Bibliographic record

VenueL’éducation en débats analyse comparée · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic and Sociocultural Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Relation (database)Subject (documents)Identity (music)Identification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article documente les pratiques dclares d'enseignantes de la premire anne du primaire en classe ordinaire relatives l'accueil et au soutien au processus d'tablissement des lves immigrant-es qui s'inscrivent pour la premire fois dans le rseau scolaire et qui sont en apprentissage du franais (EIAF).Selon une dmarche qualitative, neuf enseignantes de la grande rgion de Montral, dans la province du Qubec, ont t rencontres.Deux outils de collecte de donnes ont t mis profit : le rseau d'associations libres d'ides et les entretiens semi-dirigs.S'appuyant sur une typologie de Radhouane et Akkari (2022) sur les pratiques ajoutes, intgres et empches, les pratiques dclares par les enseignantes ont t analyses.La discussion permet de voir si ces pratiques s'inscrivent ou non dans une approche d'ducation inclusive.Ainsi, les analyses effectues illustrent une sensibilit de la part des enseignantes la diversit de leurs lves ainsi qu'une mobilisation importante pour adapter leurs pratiques.Il semble toutefois que peu d'entre elles remettent en question des pratiques qui risqueraient de renforcer les rapports ingalitaires entre l'cole et les parents ou les ingalits rencontres par les lves.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL’éducation en débats analyse comparéeSame topicLinguistic and Sociocultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207