Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’évaluation vécue dans les écoles américaines a changé de rôle. De l’évaluation à dimension humaine, nous sommes passés, dans de nombreux pays, à une évaluation de performance standardisée et quantitative dont la fonction est politique, que cet essai analyse de façon critique au vu des recherches sur la validité des tests standardisés. Dans leur évaluation de terrain, les enseignants tendent à tenir compte des facteurs humains, au contraire des mesures standardisées qui contribuent à refaçonner l’enseignement selon les prescriptions des législateurs. La tendance actuelle en matière d’évaluation scolaire porte la raison instrumentale à son extrême, comme si les machines et les critères bureaucratiques pouvaient remplacer les agents humains. Elle peut porter un large préjudice aux minorités linguistiques. L’évaluation est toujours relative car elle dépend d’une interprétation conceptuelle et du contexte d’application. Une approche plus humaine est proposée.
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 | 0.034 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".