Les écrits intermédiaires partagés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brouillons, avant-textes, manuscrits, notes, planification… Quelle place donner aux traces écrites « intermédiaires » produites à l'école, dans le développement des compétences langagières ? Révélateurs d’un processus d’écriture et d’apprentissage, ces écrits témoignent aussi de l’importance des interactions et de la colla¬boration (tant avec l’enseignant·e qu’avec les pairs) dans la construction de ces savoirs. Ce volume met précisément l’accent sur la dimension d’ « énonciation partagée ». Parmi les aspects abordés : quels sont les formes et les rôles de ces interactions dans la production et les transformations des écrits intermédiaires ? Quels sont les dispositifs d’enseignement et de formation qui les favorisent dans les contextes collaboratifs actuels ? Porté par des chercheurs belges, français, suisses et canadiens, cet ouvrage collectif s’est développé autour de trois axes : les apprentissages, les dispositifs d’enseignement et les pratiques de formation qui permettent l’étude de ces écrits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.009 |
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".