La competencia como organizadora de los programas de formación : hacia un desempeño competente
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los autores del presente trabajo son investigadores del Observatorio de Reformas Educativas (ORE) de la Universidad de Quebec en Montreal (UQAM), presentan una reflexión teórica y práctica sobre el uso del concepto de competencia como organizador de programas de estudios. Partiendo del origen del concepto y su aplicación en los distintos campos disciplinares que lo han utilizado, proponen una perspectiva contextualizada.Inspirados principalmente en el enfoque de la didáctica profesional y en los trabajos de Philippe Jonnaert, desde los años 1980, los autores demuestran que los tres pilares para el desarrollo de las competencias son: las situaciones, el desempeño competente y la inteligencia de las situaciones.Finalmente, a partir de experiencias llevadas a cabo en Canadá y Níger, los autores ilustran una de ellas y se permiten cuestionar los contenidos de los programas de estudios.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".