L'utilisation de tablettes numériques dans des classes de troisième secondaire : retombées, difficultés, exigences et besoins de formation émergents
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plusieurs écoles tentent d'innover dans un contexte où le \npaysage technologique évolue rapidement et les tablettes numériques telles l'iPad sont clairement identifiées comme une technologie émergente susceptible d'avoir des retombées importantes en éducation à très court terme (Johnson et al., 2012). Une école secondaire québécoise intègre \ndepuis septembre 2012 des iPad dans deux de ses groupes de troisième secondaire. Une équipe de recherche accompagne l'école et suit leur parcours. Cet article présente un premier regard sur les données préliminaires amassées depuis septembre 2012 auprès des enseignants, des élèves et de leurs parents. \n \nMany schools are trying to innovate while the technological \nlandscape is changing rapidly. Digital tablets like the iPad are clearly identified as an emerging technology that could have a significant impact on education in the short term (Johnson et al., 2012). A Quebec high school \nintegrated iPad in two secondary three groups since last September. A research team accompanied the school and followed its course. This paper presents a first look at the preliminary data collected since the beginning of the project from the teachers, the students and their parents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.127 | 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 it