Une analyse interactionniste de la complémentarité des positions de savoir en recherche collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’approche collaborative s’inscrit dans une perspective de recherche/formation, visant un rapprochement entre la communauté professionnelle et la communauté scientifique au travers d’une démarche de coconstruction de savoirs autour d’un objet de préoccupation mutuelle. Elle repose sur l’hypothèse selon laquelle les praticiens possèdent des savoirs d’action qui leur permettent de se livrer à leurs activités quotidiennes, des savoirs qui peuvent être rendus discursifs par le biais d’un dispositif d’analyse de l’activité professionnelle. Mobilisant une perspective interactionniste, cet article examine la contribution des divers partenaires à la construction du savoir professionnel, soit la rencontre de « positions de savoir » différentes. Il s’attarde de façon plus particulière sur celle du chercheur qui opère une médiation sur le plan de l’objet, mais surtout sur le plan de la démarche, et illustre cette médiation en puisant dans une recherche ayant porté sur les pratiques non instrumentées d’évaluation formative d’enseignantes du primaire.
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 | 0.031 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".