Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’approche par compétences (APC ) a envahi presque tous les secteurs de l’activité humaine. L’auteur de cet article, après avoir rappelé les nombreuses interprétations dont fait l’objet le mot « compétence », situe cette notion dans le contexte actuel de mondialisation, tout en retraçant ses origines et ses fondements théoriques. Il met en évidence l’impact grandissant de l’APC sur les systèmes éducatifs et sociaux qui se manifeste notamment par la confusion entre le paradigme constructiviste et le paradigme comportementaliste, la modi?cation du rapport enseignement-apprentissage, la relation maître-élèves, l’avènement des bilans de compétences calqués sur ceux de l’industrie, etc. L’auteur analyse les apports de ce mouvement aussi bien que ses limites et les critiques qu’il suscite. Pour conclure, il propose d’adapter, en lieu et place d’une adhésion inconditionnelle à ce modèle unique, une attitude critique et dialectique, fondée sur la ré?exion et la recherche.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".