Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats d’une recherche québécoise sur l’interaction des discours de changement, dans le contexte d’un partenariat qui regroupe un réseau d’écoles associées et une faculté des sciences de l’éducation pour la formation initiale des futurs enseignants. Les données proviennent de cinquante entretiens avec des interlocuteurs du milieu scolaire et du milieu universitaire appartenant à diverses sphères de collaboration. Elles sont analysées en s’appuyant sur la conception des discours et du savoir-pouvoir de Foucault. Sept types de discours sur les savoirs qui peuvent introduire le changement en formation des enseignants sont présentés. L’analyse permet de dégager trois formes de conceptions du changement qui sont vues comme autant de positions de pouvoir susceptibles de susciter le changement en formation des enseignants et en éducation.
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 | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".