Editorial: Standards de formation, évaluation des systèmes et développement de la qualité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La question de l’introduction de standards pour mieux piloter les systèmes de formation et accroître la qualité de l’enseignement dans le cadre de réformes nationales de l’éducation n’a cessé de prendre de l’importance dans débat sur la politique de l’éducation. La raison en tient sans doute à l’existence de grands tests internationaux de performances tels que PISA. Plusieurs pays ont saisi l’occasion de ce «tournant empirique dans la politique éducationnelle» pour développer des standards pour leurs propres systèmes éducatifs. On dispose depuis des résultats de nombreuses recherches entreprises au Canada, en Suède, en Finlande et dans bien d’autres pays encore qui ont permis de réunir une vaste expérience en la matière. (DIPF/Orig.)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".