La formule actuelle d’évaluation ministérielle au Nouveau-Brunswick. Pour qui? Pourquoi?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article comporte une analyse critique de la composante évaluative du plan éducatifLes enfants au premier planlancé au Nouveau-Brunswick. Il soutient la thèse selon laquelle le plan du ministère de l’Éducation présente une approche cohérente avec le management axé sur les résultats de performance et qu’il s’agit, dans ce contexte, de ne pas confondre l’évaluation du système éducatif et l’évaluation des apprentissages. Pour en arriver à cette conclusion, nous analysons les conséquences de l’évaluation standardisée en lien avec les théories managériales axées sur la performance. Par la suite, à l’aide du concept de l’outil convivial développé par Illich, nous montrons comment il serait possible que les évaluations standardisées soient utilisées d’une manière optimale sans qu’elles deviennent un obstacle aux finalités plus humanistes et émancipatrices proposées parLes enfants au premier plan.
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 | 0.042 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".