Le portfolio, quel lien entre les écrits réflexifs et les compétences ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La recherche est centrée sur la mise en place d’un nouveau dispositif pédagogique dans le plan de formation de l’Institut universitaire de formation des maîtres entre 2007 et 2010, le processus portfolio. Une des questions posées est celle du lien entre l’écriture réflexive des objets du portfolio et l’acquisition réelle des compé - tences attendues par l’institution et mises en oeuvre par les stagiaires. Sur le plan méthodologique, un corpus de 40 portfolios a été étudié pour lesquels un indice réflexif a été défini. Y a-t-il en particulier une inférence entre l’écriture réflexive du portfolio et l’acquisition de compétences ? Tel est l’enjeu de cette étude. Les résultats montrent que si un lien entre la réflexivité et le niveau d’acquisition de compétences est établi, il ne permet pas toutefois d’inférer la réflexivité à l’acquisition de compétences.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| 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".