Collaborate to act, collaborate to learn: the case of a primary school accreditation process as an international school in Quebec [Collaborer pour agir et collaborer pour apprendre : le cas d’une école primaire québécoise en processus d’accréditation à titre d’école internationale]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to describe how, in the process of accreditation as an international primary school, the practices of teachers, management and an educational consultant, invited to collaborate to act and collaborate to learn, evolve. In this process, each cycle team of teachers is committed to develop, pilot and evaluate collaboration of unreleased teaching modules. Collected through semi-structured interviews, observations, meetings and training activities, the results of this action research indicate that learning is primarily the result of socialization and the action through collaboration in the design and implementation of modules and less through activities deliberately and collectively oriented learning and appropriation of new practices.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".