Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ONTARIO'S population has come to know two important things about the recreational habits of Premier Mike Harris. First, he loves to golf. Second, he views taunting teachers as at least as much fun as hitting the links. Spring is in the air, and Harris is about to prove he is in fine form, ready to resume both of his favorite pastimes. One of Harris' more controversial 1999 campaign promises was to implement the competency testing of every practicing teacher in the province. Timed as it was in the midst of furious antigovernment campaigning by Ontario's four teacher unions, this announcement, however innocuously worded, came off sounding more like a threat than a promise. Consider this brief excerpt from a letter written by Janet Ecker, minister of education, to the Ontario College of Teachers, dated 10 November 1999. In a rapidly changing world, we have an obligation to ensure that students receive the highest quality education and that teachers maintain their certification by having current skills and knowledge. In order to accomplish this, the Ontario government has made a commitment to require teachers to participate in a teacher testing program. Curious journalists asked about the costs, content, and consequences of testing more than 100,000 teachers, but the premier refused ' or, more likely, was unable ' to elaborate. Harris' vague responses gave pundits and humorists license to imagine some inventive approaches to assessing teacher quality, Tory style. Linwood Barclay, whose career as a political satirist has benefited immensely from a recent abundance of raw material, devised a set of test questions to reflect the spirit of the times. Teachers of the arts, he suggested, should answer the following: Since Ontario needs to remain a leader in turning out composers of elevator music and imaginative writers to draft ministry press releases, prepare a lesson on one of the following that would demonstrate the close relationship between arts and the economy: a) tell the story of the Toronto Stock Exchange through interpretive dance, b) mount a musical version of the Common Sense Revolution [the Tory slogan], c) make the case for charter schools through finger-painting.1 A high school teacher told the Ottawa Citizen that he was also prepared to assist the government with the tough job ahead of it. One of his questions deals with communication skills for high school teachers: 'True or false: arguing with an adolescent is like mud wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig loves it. Explain.'2 As the provincial election campaign heated up, it soon became apparent that teacher testing was no joke. Polling showed strong public support for testing teachers, especially when pollsters' questions emphasized the end rather than the means, as in 'Would you favor testing to ensure that every Ontario teacher is competent?' Once elected ' and holding its second majority government ' the Harris Administration began to move ahead with the education reforms that had caused chaos during its first go-round, including budget cuts, school board amalgamation, an end to local taxation, and new curricula for everybody and everything. Following the election, the government was peppered with increasingly pointed questions about exactly how teacher testing would be implemented. Faced with the very real complexities of carrying out the plan, not just selling it, the government suddenly announced that the Ontario College of Teachers would be the body responsible for devising the tests, and the College was instructed to implement them by June 2000. Created during the first Tory mandate to 'govern the profession in the public interest,' the Ontario College of Teachers made no secret of the fact that it was miffed that the government's teacher-testing proposal had not been vetted with the College before commitments were made. Eager to be perceived as the font of all intellectual rigor and political impartiality, the College did not want its name associated with a quick-fix project like teacher testing. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,700 | 0,338 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».