L’approche écocollaborative en éducation : un métissage culturel en quête d’homéostasie, d’émancipation et de self-empowerment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’appuie sur une expérience de recherche participative dont les conditions spécifiques de réalisation ont demandé des ajustements méthodologiques importants que nous proposons d’analyser. Les enjeux de la recherche ayant mené au choix méthodologique sont présentés de même que la méthodologie retenue. Les modifications témoignant d’une appropriation du pouvoir par les auteurs sont décrites et une réflexion sur leurs implications est discutée. Le constat avancé est que l’approcheécocollaborative, basée sur des relations harmonieuses et tenant compte de la complexité des systèmes, semble répondre à un besoin de revoir les conditions de « travail » de l’enseignante et de la chercheuse afin d’atténuer les contraintes institutionnelles, de repousser les limites de l’action professionnelle et ainsi édifier une culture commune émancipatrice et de self-empowerment.
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 | 0.040 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".