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 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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".