Fondements épistémologiques des auteurs clés de la pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur : une analyse de trois revues 1976-2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À la suite du constat que la pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur, comme domaine de recherche, est un espace intellectuel en émergence, dynamique certes, mais dispersé dans toutes les disciplines, comment faire pour s’y retrouver ? À partir d’une critique du concept de paradigme, nous élaborons quatre propositions de recherche qui prennent appui sur la philosophie, l’histoire et la sociologie des sciences. L’examen attentif des contributions clés de la pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur, extraites de trois revues de recherche couvrant la période 1976-2003, a permis la mise au jour d’une carte épistémologique déclinée en trois programmes de recherche. Une discussion centrée à la fois sur des questions théoriques et pratiques est proposée en fin de parcours.
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 | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".