Qu'en est-il des pratiques déclarées d'enseignants du primaire utilisant une approche intégrée du français ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’enseignement du français peut s’avérer complexe à orchestrer en raison de ses nombreuses composantes : (lecture, écriture, oral, mais également grammaire, littérature, etc.). Chacune d’entre elles comporte des savoirs qui lui sont propres et habituellement traités de manière autonome (Simard et al. 2019). Or, des recherches démontrent qu’il est bénéfique d’opter pour une approche intégrée et d’articuler les différentes compétences entre elles (Graham 2020). Il n’en demeure pas moins que l’approche intégrée du français a été peu documentée (Morin et al.,s.d.). Cet article porte sur une recherche exploratoire visant à décrire les pratiques déclarées obtenues à partir d’un questionnaire et d’un entretien semi-dirigé mené auprès de 20 enseignants du primaire au Québec utilisant cette approche.
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 | 0.035 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".