Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente un regard théorique sur une démarche de recherche collaborative telle qu’elle a été menée avec un groupe d’éducatrices en garde scolaire dans un projet d’études doctorales. L’objet de la recherche rejoint une double finalité : favoriser le développement professionnel des praticiennes et questionner le processus de construction du savoir. Grâce à la démarche ethnométhodologique, il a été possible de placer les éducatrices en situation de décrire, d’analyser, d’interpréter leurs actions. Les éducatrices ont été soutenues dans leur rôle de chercheuse-formatrice afin de favoriser un mécanisme adéquat de participation au développement de la pratique professionnelle. Le plus grand défi pour quiconque veut arrimer la recherche en éducation aux besoins de la pratique consiste à adopter un double regard.
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 | 0.053 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".