Les pratiques de gestion des directions d’école secondaire sont-elles liées à la réussite des élèves?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les liens entre les pratiques de gestion des membres de la direction dans six ecoles secondaires et la reussite des eleves. Les perceptions des directions (N = 17), du personnel professionnel (N = 20) et des eleves (N = 1 560) a cet egard ont ete mises en relation avec la reussite des eleves, mesuree a l’aide des resultats obtenus en francais et en mathematiques. L’etude revele que 35 pratiques de gestion et caracteristiques d’ecole sont associees a une meilleure reussite des eleves. D’une part, les pratiques axees sur la pedagogie et le suivi des resultats sont liees a une reduction des taux d’echec, tandis que les pratiques axees sur l’instauration d’un climat harmonieux et respectueux pour les eleves sont pour leur part liees a une augmentation des taux de reussite. Les pratiques de gestion pourraient jouer un role mediateur entre l’experience vecue en classe et la reussite des eleves.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".