L’évaluation des compétences professionnelles : apports croisés de la littérature en évaluation, en éducation et en psychologie du travail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette recension propose de synthétiser les apports croisés de la littérature en évaluation, en éducation et en psychologie du travail sur la question de l’évaluation des compétences professionnelles en formation. En effet, s’il s’agit d’une question nouvelle et d’actualité dans le champ de la formation, nous verrons que des auteurs ont proposé des définitions et des cadres pour modéliser des compétences, tandis que d’autres ont fait avancer la connaissance de l’activité des évaluateurs dans ces situations, ce qui permet d’en tirer certains enseignements. D’autres encore ont étudié les effets positifs mais aussi pervers de ces pratiques. Tout ceci constituera une revue de littérature qui pourra intéresser les praticiens, les enseignants et les formateurs professionnels désireux de connaître les avancées de la recherche sur ces questions.
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 | 0.122 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".