Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis les années 1980, la professionnalisation domine le discours réformiste international à propos de l’enseignement. Ce texte s’interroge sur les résultats du mouvement de professionnalisation depuis 30 ans. Observe-t-on vraiment une consolidation du mouvement professionnel en ce début du XXIe siècle ? Nous allons montrer que, envisagée dans une perspective internationale, l’évolution de l’enseignement n’a rien de linéaire, qu’elle est faite de continuités, de détours, de retours en arrière. De plus, l’enseignement a une évolution inégale selon les pays, voire les régions d’un même pays : il n’évolue pas au même rythme partout et des formes anciennes cohabitent avec des formes contemporaines, ce qui engendre diverses tensions. Finalement, on observe dans un grand nombre de pays des obstacles à la professionnalisation : publics scolaires en difficulté, compétition, marchandisation de l’éducation, etc. Comment dès lors concevoir une véritable professionnalisation ?
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".