Benchmark sur les politiques et stratégies d'accompagnement des apprenants dyslexiques au Canada, en France et au Maroc: Analyse comparative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article présent cherche à effectuer une comparaison de type analytique ou benchmarking dans le cadre de la comparaison des stratégies d’accompagnement étrangères avec celle mises en place au Maroc. La tentative de comparaison présente ne consiste pas uniquement à nous renseigner pas sur la dyslexie à partir du vécu personnel de l’apprenant, mais également sur les sociétés dans lequel ce trouble d’apprentissage s’inscrit. Cette comparaison s’effectue entre les pays du Canada dont le système d’accompagnement se caractérise par une prise en charge exhaustive, la France dont la multitude des intervenants accentue l’ambivalence de la prise en charge et le Maroc dont l’ignorance des parents, l’absence de prise en charge, et le manque d’aménagements spéciaux à l’école demeure source d’exclusion scolaire des enfants aux prises avec une dyslexie.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".