L'introduction de la construction de sens dans l'implantation de politiques en éducation : apports et pistes de recherche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article présente un cadre de références théorique et empirique fondé sur des constats émanant du champ de la construction de sens et se divisant en deux grandes tendances : les approches sociocognitives et sociologiques. Les auteurs tentent ainsi d’explorer une dimension clé du processus de mise en œuvre : la construction de sens par les acteurs scolaires lors de réformes en éducation. Dans le corpus littéraire nord-américain, le cadre théorique de la construction de sens a permis plusieurs contributions importantes à l’étude du changement et de l’implantation des politiques éducatives. Certains auteurs ont pu démontrer les différentes manières dont les chefs d’établissement et les enseignants construisent du sens autour d’une politique expliquant les variations locales du changement ou de l’implantation des politiques (Spillane 2001, 2002, Coburn 2001, 2005). Elles illustrent, en particulier, que les enjeux locaux vont bien au-delà d’une résistance aux 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".