Conditions favorables et défavorables au développement de pratiques inclusives en enseignement secondaire : les conclusions d’une métasynthèse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Afin de mieux repondre a la diversite des eleves en classe, l’ecole, dans une perspective inclusive, doit s’adapter. Dans le cadre de cette etude, en utilisant le modele de pratiques fondees sur les prises de decisions eclairees, nous avons choisi de mettre en evidence une nouvelle comprehension des enjeux lies a l’inclusion des eleves du secondaire. Les objectifs de cette metasynthese sont d’identifier les conditions favorables et defavorables a l’inclusion scolaire des eleves ayant des besoins particuliers, eu egard a l’organisation des services a l’eleve, aux pratiques pedagogiques et a d’autres conditions emergeant de la litterature scientifique. Les resultats revelent que les conditions favorables a l’inclusion reposent notamment sur une ouverture au changement, le leadership de la direction, la posture de l’enseignant et la culture de collaboration au sein de l’ecole. Les conditions defavorables sont pour leur part en partie liees a des attitudes negatives, des attentes peu elevees et des craintes de la part des acteurs scolaires de meme qu’a un manque de flexibilite de l’organisation scolaire.
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 | 0.036 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".