Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis les annees 80, un bon nombre d'ouvrages scientifiques valorisent l'action en partenariat, l' Agir ensemble ou encore les alliances avec les partenaires de l'ecole. Qu'en est-il de la place de ce concept dans les politiques publiques francaises et quebecoises. C'est a cette question que le present texte tente de repondre par une analyse textuelle descriptive (assistee par le logiciel SEMATO) de la notion de l' Agir ensemble dans les lois francaises et quebecoises de l'education. Un etat des lieux de l'utilisation de ce concept necessaire aux alliances educatives a pu etre mene pour chacun des deux systemes d'education. L'analyse a permis de faire ressortir la place importante dans la loi francaise de la cooperation et du balisage par les textes de l'agir ensemble. Du cote quebecois, on observe un cadrage plus centre sur l'ecole et sur l'ouverture a y laisser intervenir des partenaires externes au systeme educatif. Ce constat et les autres presentes par les auteurs peuvent enrichir l'analyse ulterieure des pratiques sur le terrain en la matiere dans chacun des ces systemes educatifs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".