History and Perspectives of Adult Education and Professional Teacher Education: Between complicity, distance, and recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This text is divided into three broad sections. The first section will elaborate the figure of professionalization, which today appears to be the target of professional training policies. It also seems to be considered a means and thus a guarantee of the professional aim of proposed training. On what ideological and pedagogical presuppositions is this professionalization based? The second figure embodying professional training contexts is that of knowledge. What knowledge is present in the professional training of teachers? Is it involved in professionalization processes? If so, in what ways? To what extent does the tone given to professionalization – whether in connection with the objective of instruction, socialization, or qualification – determine a specific sense for Knowledge and for the knowledge defined and articulated in professional teacher training? The third symbolic figure of professional training is that of the school-life relationship. Where does professional training begin and end? What are its territories? Can it exceed the usual territories and hence the expertise expected of a professional? By examining these three forms, we hope to offer the reader a new approach to professional teacher training inspired by a reminder of the aims and values of adult education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".