MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978537098 · doi:10.7202/900371ar

La pratique de l’évaluation des enseignants au Nouveau-Brunswick, au Québec et en Ontario

2009· article· fr· W1978537098 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marc J. Richard, Pierre Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l éducation · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente une enquête sur la pratique de l’évaluation des enseignants au Nouveau-Brunswick, au Québec et en Ontario. Prenant en considération les divers aspects de l’évaluation suggérés par le modèle de Bolton, les auteurs ont élaboré un questionnaire qui porte sur les objectifs, les critères, les modalités et procédures, les attitudes et le perfectionnement des évaluateurs. Ce questionnaire a été envoyé à 125 conseils scolaires répartis dans les trois provinces. Les résultats permettent la comparaison des différentes pratiques de l’évaluation ainsi que la formulation de recommandations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.476
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.029 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l éducationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207