Un projet de mise en place de la visioconférence en support à la formation des enseignants inuits : enjeux et bénéfices d’une recherche-développement en milieu nordique | Implementation of Videoconferencing to Support Inuit Teacher Training: Advantages and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research presented in this article proposes new training formulas for Inuit teachers from Puvirnituq and Ivujivik in Nunavik through the experiences of videoconferencing. It is based on a hybrid of face-to-face and distance training, where collaborative work is a priority. Optimal conditions for Inuit teacher training were identified through observing the various uses of videoconferencing from 2011 to 2015 - this despite the geographic remoteness, and the biculturalism and trilingualism of Inuit teachers, which originally made the integration of this technology difficult. The preliminary results highlight advantages and limitations of such an implementation by raising issues related to biculturalism, trilingualism, technology, management and governance.Fondée sur une formation hybride présentielle et distancielle et privilégiant le travail collaboratif, la présente recherche propose la mise à l’essai de nouvelles formules de formation des enseignants inuits de Puvirnituq et d’Ivujivik au Nunavik à travers une expérience de visioconférence. Bien que le contexte d’éloignement géographique ainsi que le biculturalisme et le trilinguisme des enseignants inuits aient rendu difficile l’intégration pédagogique de cette technologie, l’observation pendant 4 ans (2011-2015) de différentes utilisations de la visioconférence a permis d’identifier les conditions optimales de formation des enseignants inuits. Les résultats préliminaires mettent en évidence les avantages et les limites d’une telle implantation en faisant émerger les défis liés à la biculturalité, au trilinguisme, à la technologie, à la gestion et à la gouvernance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".