L'évaluation des enseignants permanents au Québec: une question actuelle et litigieuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise à analyser le contexte québécois au regard de l’évaluation des enseignants permanents du secondaire et à proposer des pistes de recherches futures. Bien qu’elle soit largement discutée dans les médias écrits de la province, la question de l’évaluation du personnel enseignant demeure litigieuse, voire taboue, et de nombreuses opinions divergentes coexistent. Les écrits scientifiques qui se penchent sur cette question au Québec sont rares et une imprécision conceptuelle entre l’évaluation et la supervision pédagogique persiste dans les travaux de recherche. Néanmoins, des rapports gouvernementaux et des avis professionnels nous renseignent sur les pratiques actuelles d’évaluation des enseignants ainsi que sur les difficultés rencontrées par les directions d’établissement qui tentent d’implanter une telle mesure.
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 | 0.025 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".