Les transformations du travail des professeurs des universités québécoises : tendances fondamentales et développements souhaités
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’appuie sur des données colligées lors d'une enquête effectuée auprès des professeurs des universités québécoises ; il identifie les tendances fondamentales de la transformation actuelle du travail professoral et propose une série de mesures pour mieux concilier les exigences du monde universitaire et la spécificité du travail professoral. D'une part, il rappelle que la charge de travail des professeurs est lourde, que les tâches sont plus ou moins bien intégrées, et que diverses transformations qualitatives s’imposent aux tâches d'enseignement et de recherche. D'autre part, il propose de délester certaines activités de gestion courante, de mieux identifier les compétences requises dans le nouveau contexte et de reconnaître davantage le caractère organisationnel et collectif du travail et l'existence de plusieurs types d’aménagements des tâches professorales.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".