Le concept de recherche collaborative : l’idée d’un rapprochement entre chercheurs universitaires et praticiens enseignants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a pour but d'établir les bases conceptuelles de l'approche collaborative de la recherche en éducation, plus spécifiquement celle qui réunit chercheurs universitaires et praticiens enseignants autour d'un questionnement lié à l'exercice de la pratique. Trois énoncés viennent structurer cette conceptuali- sation: 1) l'approche collaborative suppose une démarche de coconstruction entre les partenaires concernés; 2) elle joue sur deux registres à la fois, soit celui de la production de connaissances et celui du développement professionnel des praticiens; 3) elle contribue au rapprochement, voire à la médiation entre communauté de recherche et communauté de pratique. À l'horizon de ces trois énoncés se profile une vision socioconstructiviste du « savoir » à développer, et cela, à partir d'une démarche collective d'interprétation où théorie et pratique sont constamment mises en relation.
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 | 0.077 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.046 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".