Les pratiques de lecture identifiées par les stagiaires en formation initiale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’inscrit dans les nouvelles analyses fondées sur l’observation des pratiques et la prise en compte des acteurs dans leur développement professionnel. Dans le cadre d’une recherche qualitative/interprétative, l’autrice identifie les pratiques de lecture colligées par les stagiaires en formation initiale à l’aide d’un outil de formation, le carnet de lecture. Centrée sur trois axes d’observation, cette étude identifie les principales pratiques de lecture observées en classe, analyse le matériel imprimé et informatique utilisé par les maîtres-associés et décrit la fréquentation de la bibliothèque scolaire et le matériel qu’on y trouve. Malgré les limites inhérentes au carnet de lecture, cet outil de formation a contribué à la coconstruction des connaissances des stagiaires.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".