Conséquences des conceptions curriculaires actuelles sur les modes évaluatifs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article met au jour différentes conséquences de la conception curriculaire étatsunienne sur les pratiques évaluatives. Il rappelle les distinctions entre les notions francophones de cursus et de programme et celle de curriculum dont il retrace à grands traits les facteurs sociohistoriques qui ont conduit à son émergence aux Etats-Unis. Il en précise les principales caractéristiques en soulignant ses liens avec les notions de professionnalisation et de compétence. Enfin, l’article dégage des conséquences d’une approche curriculaire sur les modes évaluatifs sous deux angles, celui des objets à évaluer que sont les compétences dont il signale les attributs généralement partagés, et celui des processus évaluatifs qu’il illustre à partir de l’évaluation d’un cours de premier cycle universitaire sur les fondements de l’éducation. La conclusion souligne la non-pertinence, dans cette logique, de l’examen traditionnel.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".