MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074674248 · doi:10.7202/1017288ar

Avantages et limites des approches méthodologiques utilisées pour étudier les pratiques enseignantes

2013· article· fr· W2074674248 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marie Dupin de Saint-André, Isabelle Montésinos‐Gelet, Marie‐France Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueNouveaux cahiers de la recherche en éducation · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans les recherches en sciences de l’éducation, les pratiques enseignantes semblent être de plus en plus choisies comme objet d’investigation. Or, ces pratiques peuvent être examinées au moyen de différentes approches méthodologiques (Bru, 2002a). À partir des écrits sur ce sujet, nous proposons une synthèse des avantages et des limites des approches méthodologiques qui paraissent être les plus souvent utilisées pour étudier les pratiques enseignantes. Dans cette optique, nous avons regroupé ces approches en trois grandes familles en fonction de leur visée : les approches à visée prescriptive, les approches à visée heuristique et les approches à visée pratique.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.495
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.025 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouveaux cahiers de la recherche en éducationSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207