LE RAPPORT DES ÉTUDIANTS À LA RÉFLEXION ET À L’ÉCRITURE: UNE RÉALITÉ À PRENDRE EN COMPTE POUR INSTALLER DES DISPOSITIFS EFFICACES EN FORMATION INITIALE À L’ENSEIGNEMENT
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last fifteen years, reflective analysis is being recognized as one of the conditions in the professional status of teaching. In fact, devices promoting reflective positions are essential to teacher training. Nonetheless, certain students seem to reject such devises in various ways; hence, it is appropriate to question students’ initial dispositions towards reflection and one of its most common modes; i.e., reflective writing. Is the relation between reflection/reflective writing and these students a supporting point or rather an obstacle in their early training? Answers were sought through a questionnaire given to first year teaching students at Sherbrooke University. Though findings have shown a much less negative context, there is however, a wide variety of representations and early practices which indeed constitute a challenge for trainers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it