Le groupe de codéveloppement : un levier de réflexivité des enseignants en transition professionnelle ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les contextes changeants de notre époque affectent toutes les professions, et l’enseignement ne fait pas exception : les enseignants ont des conditions de travail instables qui les situent souvent dans des périodes de transition professionnelle. Nous avons proposé à quatre enseignants d’une école secondaire située sur l’Île de Montréal une démarche en groupe de codéveloppement professionnel, afin de les soutenir dans ce qu’ils vivent comme étant une période de transition professionnelle. À partir des récits de pratique contrastés de deux de ces enseignants, marqués par les ressources discursives des membres du groupe qui mettaient à leur disposition leurs expertises variées, nous examinons dans quelle mesure ce dispositif constitue un levier de réflexivité et tentons d’en cerner les écueils.
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 | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".