MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002562971 · doi:10.7202/031839ar

Modalités de socialisation et représentations didactiques de maîtres de l’enseignement professionnel au Québec

2007· article· fr· W2002562971 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marcelle Hardy, Rachel Desrosiers-Sabbath, Élysabeth Defrênes

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l éducation · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente le cadre d'analyse et la méthodologie d'une recherche qu'allie une approche didactique à une perspective sociologique retenus pour étudier les représentations des enseignants qui oeuvrent auprès d'élèves postulant un diplôme d'études professionnelles (DEP) en secrétariat ou en usinage. Il traite ensuite des caractéristiques socioprofessionnelles des enseignants et de leurs modalités de socialisation en scrutant la représentation des types de savoir qu'ils relient au métier enseigné et au monde du travail, et leur représentation de leurs élèves et de leur rôle vis-à-vis d'eux. Ces représentations valorisent le savoir-être centré sur les capacités de participation au milieu de travail. L'étude des représentations didactiques met en évidence la cohabitation des orientations humaniste et cognitiviste chez les maîtres de l'enseignement professionnel. Les observations sociologiques et didactiques révèlent une même préoccupation des enseignants devant les changements du milieu de travail et le développement des aptitudes de leurs élèves à participer et à s'adapter à ces changements.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.686
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.088 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l éducationSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207