La formation ࣁ distance en contexte de globalisation. Perspectives francophones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a pour objectif d'analyser la contribution des auteurs de la revue Distances et Savoirs ayant traité du thème de la formation à distance dans le contexte de la globalisation.Il propose un inventaire des questions, des problèmes et des enjeux qu'ils ont privilégiés ; une description de la manière dont ils les ont abordés et une synthèse des conclusions qu'ils en ont tirées.Il interroge également ce qu'ils ont ignoré, passé sous silence ou laissé dans l'ombre.Le corpus analysé compte 24 articles.Après une brève réflexion sur le contexte que dessine pour la formation à distance la globalisation des échanges, la présentation des résultats regroupe les différents objets abordés en trois catégories : la régulation internationale de la formation à distance ; les campus numériques ; et les TIC pour le développement.La conclusion est précédée de quelques commentaires sur les apports et les lacunes du traitement du thème par les chercheurs publiés dans Distances et Savoirs.ABSTRACT.This paper aims to analyze authors' contribution published in Distances et Savoirs on the topic of distance education in the context of globalization.It offers an inventory of questions, problems and issues they have selected; a description of the way they have studied them and a synthesis of conclusions they have reached.It also pinpoints what they have ignored, silenced or left in the shadow.The corpus includes 24 papers.After a short reflection on the background set up by the globalization process, the outcomes presentation is structured by distributing the different objects in three categories : the international regulation of distance education; the e-learning experiments; and ICTs for development.Before concluding, a few comments highlight valuable contributions, but also a few omissions, in the researchers' works published by Distances et Savoirs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".