Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’efficacité de l’enseignement préoccupe actuellement les systèmes d’éducation nationaux et soulève du même coup la question de la responsabilité du directeur de l’établissement à l’égard de la qualité des services éducatifs et de la supervision pédagogique. Or évoquer la supervision conduit à reconnaître certaines dérives possibles. Une commission scolaire québécoise voulant inscrire cette intervention dans une relation de soutien au développe ment professionnel a entrepris, avec un groupe de directrices et directeurs, une recherche-action-formation qui avait pour objectif la construction du savoir au regard de l’accompagnement. Les résultats montrent comment les participants explorent et s’approprient de nouvelles façons de travailler avec leur personnel enseignant. De plus, à travers un va-et-vient entre l’expérimentation et la théorisation, un modèle de référence commun apportant un sens aux interventions d’accompagnement menées par des directeurs d’établissement s’est construit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 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".