MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1492340042 · doi:10.7202/039032ar

La relation de confiance maître-élève : perception d’élèves ayant des difficultés scolaires

2010· article· fr· W1492340042 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nadia Rousseau, Rollande Deslandes, Hélène Fournier

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l éducation de McGill · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Representations and Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La qualité de la relation maître-élève est de plus en plus souvent nommée comme facteur contribuant à la persévérance scolaire. Dans le cadre d’une étude, nous avons choisi de porter un regard particulier sur les relations maître-élève du point de vue des élèves ayant des difficultés scolaires importantes, exclus des cheminements scolaires ordinaires. Comment se construit la relation de confiance entre un enseignant et un élève vivant des difficultés scolaires importantes ? Comment ces jeunes définissent-ils la confiance ? Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude qualitative portant sur les perceptions des jeunes exclus des classes ordinaires relativement à la construction du lien de confiance maître-élève. Les résultats s’articulent autour de quatre grandes thématiques : la définition de la confiance; la création du lien de confiance; l’importance de la confiance; le portrait d’un enseignant de confiance. Les résultats révèlent des attentes de respect, de réciprocité et de méritocratie chez les élèves. De plus, l’étude met en évidence l’importance de la confiance en soi avant d’être en mesure de faire confiance à l’autre.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.234
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l éducation de McGillSame topicSocial Representations and IdentityFrench-language works237,207