Les stages d’enseignement consécutifs en fin de formation initiale et le développement de compétences professionnelles : avantages et défis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette communication traite principalement des évaluations de stages telles que formulées par les enseignants formateurs ayant accompagné des stagiaires d'un programme de B.Éd. intensif. Ce programme de formation initiale à l'enseignement tel qu'élaboré et dispensé par l'Université Sainte-Anne (seule université francophone en Nouvelle-Écosse) est présenté. Les résultats présentés mettent en lumière des différences et des similarités entre les compétences observées chez des stagiaires visant une carrière à l'élémentaire et ceux se dirigeant vers l'enseignement au secondaire. Nous discutons notamment des avantages que semblent vivre les stagiaires œuvrant à l'élémentaire en ce qui concerne la gestion de classe, en plus de porter une attention particulière aux défis que doivent notamment relever les stagiaires au secondaire en ce qui concerne la planification à court et à long terme.
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 | 0.016 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".