Les pratiques des conseillers d’orientation du Québec en matière d’évaluation psychométrique dans les écoles secondaires : motifs d’utilisation, critères de sélection, modalités d’évaluation, formation et respect des normes de pratique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte est le premier de deux articles ayant pour objectif de présenter les résultats d’une enquête visant à décrire les pratiques de testing des conseillers d’orientation1 œuvrant au secondaire en comparaison avec celles des autres conseillers d’orientation. Un échantillon de 529 conseillers d’orientation du Québec, dont 141 travaillant au secondaire, ont répondu à un questionnaire en ligne portant sur leurs pratiques professionnelles. Les résultats décrivent leurs motifs d’utilisation, leurs critères de sélection, leurs modalités d'évaluation privilégiées, les caractéristiques de leur formation en psychométrie et leur respect des normes. La discussion expose les spécificités de la pratique de testing au secondaire.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".