Les défis de l’innovation selon la théorie de l’activité : le cas de l’école (éloignée) en réseau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les defis de l’innovation en milieu scolaire partant de la theorie de l’activite, plus precisement du cadre conceptuel d’Engestrom (1987, 2015). L’innovation etudiee, soit l’ecole (eloignee) en reseau (2002-2017), incluait dans son dispositif les modeles de la communaute d’apprentissage, de la communaute d’elaboration de connaissances et de la communaute de pratique. Differents systemes d’activite en interaction sont analyses afin de reperer les tensions relatives a ces modeles qui ont pose des defis particuliers lors de la mise en oeuvre de ce dispositif novateur. En matiere de mise a l’echelle, le cadre d’analyse de Coburn (2003), bonifie par Dede (2006), est utilise.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Activity-theory analysis of a networked-school innovation; the object is school teaching and learning, not research.
This studies educational innovation in schools rather than the conduct or governance of research.
Activity-theory analysis of networked school innovation; object is education practice, not research.
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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".