La réflexivité : exercice pédagogique et outil d’accompagnement aux cycles supérieurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les résultats présentés dans cet article découlent d’une étude qualitative exploratoire de type co-construction auto-ethnographique portant sur la réflexivité d’étudiantes aux cycles supérieurs, démarche qui exige que l’on porte un regard analytique et critique sur soi ainsi que sur sa position, son rôle et ses pratiques. Le but de l’étude est de mieux comprendre l’apport de la réflexivité dans le cheminement des étudiants de 2e et 3e cycles. Les données proviennent de textes autoréflexifs composés par six étudiantes aux cycles supérieurs, en l’occurrence les auteures de cet article. Ces données ont fait l’objet d’une analyse inductive générale. Trois dimensions identitaires en ressortent : la personne humaine, l’étudiante et l’apprentie-chercheure. À la lumière des résultats, la réflexivité comme exercice pédagogique et outil d’accompagnement des étudiants aux cycles supérieurs s’avère bénéfique.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".