Les effets de la standardisation, de la normalisation et de la pondération des indicateurs sur la robustesse d'une cote globale : le cas de l'évaluation sommative de la performance des écoles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce memoire compare les fondements epistemologiques et methodologiques des differentes evaluations de la performance des ecoles secondaires au Quebec et presente des resultats empiriques de l'effet de l'adoption de diverses pratiques methodologiques. Les principales divergences methodologiques concernent le nombre d'indicateurs utilises pour evaluer la performance des ecoles, la methode d'agregation des indicateurs, le recours a une echelle de mesure commune ainsi qu'a la ponderation des indicateurs de performance. Les effets de differentes pratiques evaluatives sur la cote globale des ecoles, leur classement ainsi que sur la robustesse de ceux-ci ont ete verifies. Les resultats montrent qu'il est preferable qu'une evaluation de la mesure de la performance des ecoles: 1) comprenne plus d'un indicateur, 2) utilise une echelle de mesure standardisee et 3) pondere les indicateurs utilises par la composite de maniere a donner plus d'importance aux indicateurs fortement correles.
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 | 0.044 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".