L'enseignant, sa formation, sa profession, son rôle: pistes pour une refondation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The point of this article is to show that schools are cultural institutions in the full sense of the term where teachers are the most important actors. This assertion lies on three main points: (a) culture is not an aggregate of one's knowledge; (b) teachers have the daily mandate of making sure their students receive cultural information; and (c) teachers are scholars, in other words they convey, interpret and analyze culture. Cet article vise à montrer que l'école est une institution culturelle au plein sens du terme et que les enseignants en sont les principaux acteurs. La démonstration de cette assertion repose sur trois arguments principaux: (a) la culture ne se réduit pas à une somme de connaissances; (b) les enseignants ont le mandat de veiller quotidiennement à l'apprentissage culturel de leurs élèves; et (c) les enseignants sont des intellectuels, c'est‐à‐dire des dépositaires, des interprètes et des critiques de la culture. Este artículo tiene como objetivo mostrar que la escuela es una institución cultural en el más puro sentido del término, institución cuyos principales actores son los profesores. La demostración de esta afirmación se sostiene en tres argumentos principales: (a) la cultura no se reduce a una suma de conocimientos; (b) los profesores tienen el mandato de velar cotidianamente por el aprendizaje cultural de sus alumnos; y (c) los profesores son intelectuales, es decir, depositarios, intérpretes y críticos de la cultura. Dieser Artikel will zeigen, dass die Schule eine im vollen Sinne des Wortes kulturelle Institution ist, deren Hauptfiguren die Lehrer sind. Diese Behauptung beruht vor allem auf drei Argumenten: (a) Die Kultur lässt sich nicht auf eine Summe von Kenntnissen reduzieren; (b) Die Lehrer müssen tagtäglich das kulturelle Erlernen der Schüler fördern; und (c) Lehrer sind Intellektuelle, dass heisst Verwahrer, Interpreten und Kritiker der Kultur.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".