Bibliographic record
Abstract
La demonstration de l’inefficacite pedagogique relative du redoublement pour remedier aux difficultes scolaires durant la scolarite obligatoire n’est plus a faire. Depuis une quinzaine d’annees, des politiques de lutte contre le redoublement sont entreprises en France, au Canada (Quebec), en Suisse, dans le canton de Geneve ou encore en Belgique francophone. L’article se penche sur les resistances qu’elles suscitent. A partir de la reforme du premier cycle de l’enseignement secondaire belge francophone, il presente un cas emblematique de decalage entre intentions et realisations en matiere de lutte contre le redoublement. L’echec relatif de cette reforme donne a voir l’attachement des enseignants au redoublement. Refusant de reduire cet attachement a une reaction conservatrice ou irrationnelle des enseignants, l’article avance que la legitimite du redoublement a leurs yeux est liee aux fonctions latentes qu’il remplit au sein du systeme scolaire (gestion de l’heterogeneite, position des etablissements, regulation de l’ordre scolaire, autonomie professionnelle). En conclusion, l’article souligne l’importance de construire les conditions de plausibilite du changement en education, lesquelles passent par une comprehension pragmatique de la realite que vivent les acteurs de terrain et une prise en compte des obstacles institutionnels au changement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".