Une enquête sur l’éthique professionnelle des enseignants du collégial québécois : caractéristiques, points de repère et stratégies utilisés pour traiter de préoccupations éthiques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some results of a survey on professional ethics conducted among francophone college teachers in Quebec are compared with a review of the literature and the results of focus groups previously held on the subject. The justification reasons behind the ethical nature of certain professional concerns, along with the guidelines and the resolution strategies used to address those concerns, are found to be similar. These justifications relate primarily to situations where there is a conflict of conscience, a conflict of values or consequences on others, particularly students; the calling into question of professional integrity stands out as a particular justification not mentioned in earlier studies. The guidelines to deal with dilemmas are also similar: institutional normative texts and values deemed relevant by the teachers come first. The results show a good balance between the use of these two types of guidelines (external and internal) by teachers. The main strategies applied by teachers for resolving dilemmas are peer discussions and personal reflection.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it