Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acteurs essentiels au service des évolutions en cours, les personnels de l’encadrement scolaire concentrent à la fois les tensions sur les conditions de travail, les ambiguïtés d’une autonomie limitée des établissements et l’envahissement des tâches administratives alors même que l’injonction à la réflexion stratégique, à l’innovation et à l’affirmation d’un « leadership » local se fait plus pressante. Dès lors, comment pense-t-on, en France et en Europe, les coopérations transversales, le travail en commun ou la responsabilité partagée des personnels des établissements ? Comment inscrire avec justesse l’établissement dans un environnement en mutation, d’un point de vue social comme économique ? Comment se redéfinit le rôle des directions d’établissements face à des instances territoriales de plus en plus actives dans la mise en œuvre des politiques éducatives ? Dans quelle mesure leur formation, initiale ou continue, leur permet-elle de construire et de développer les compétences nécessaires pour répondre aux attentes nombreuses et parfois contradictoires de l’institution et de ses usagers ? Ces questions sont traitées dans ce dossier en resituant le cas français dans un contexte européen et plus globalement international, avec l’apport de chercheurs d’Angleterre, d’Espagne, du Portugal, du Québec et de Suisse. As major actors in the current developments, school principals experience both the tensions related to working conditions, the ambiguities of an institution’s limited autonomy, and the overwhelming increase in administrative tasks. At the same time, pressure to apply strategic thinking, along with innovation and leadership has never been so strong. Therefore, how can we analyze the transversal cooperation, the collective work, and the shared responsibility of a school’s managerial staff in France and in Europe? How is it possible to accurately incorporate the establishment within a changing environment from both a social and economic point of view? How can the role of a school’s principal be redefined when faced with regional bodies increasingly implementing educational policies? To what extent does their initial or continuous professional training allow them to build and develop the necessary skills to meet the numerous and sometimes contradictory expectations of the institution and its users? In this issue, these questions are addressed by situating the French case in both a European and broader international context, with contributions from researchers from England, Spain, Portugal, Quebec, and Switzerland.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.011 |
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".