Se former professionnellement par la pratique : une dynamique individuelle et collective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La formation professionnelle passe par une dimension individuelle, mais aussi collective. En effet, une formation professionnelle n’implique pas seulement l’acquisition de savoirs spécifiques ou la mobilisation des ressources personnelles de l’individu, mettant ainsi en évidence la dynamique individuelle de celui qui exprime la volonté de se former. La formation professionnelle, grâce en particulier à son caractère d’alternance, sollicite aussi une dimension collective, car c’est en contact avec ses pairs que l’apprenant ou le praticien réussit à s’approprier une culture propre à la profession qu’il embrasse, à se forger une identité. Le contact avec un autre qui partage son activité professionnelle lui permet de confronter les savoirs, ainsi que les compétences qu’il porte, avec ce qui est porté par le collectif. Ce texte présente le regard que portent sur cet objet les différents auteurs qui ont composé ce numéro thématique.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".