La méthode Q dans l’étude des réflexions des enseignants du secondaire sur leurs pratiques professionnelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article tire son origine de notre recherche doctorale, qui s’intéresse aux relations entre les pratiques professionnelles réfléchies et le bien-être pédagogique chez les enseignants du secondaire. Cet article met en relief l’apport de la méthode Q dans l’exploration des réflexions des enseignants du secondaire sur leurs pratiques professionnelles. Ainsi, 13 enseignants ont classé 14 énoncés référant au travail enseignant sur une fiche de réponses, selon leur degré d’accord avec le contenu de ces énoncés. Les classements des participants ont été analysés à l’aide des logiciels QDA Miner et PQMethod. Nos résultats suggèrent que la méthode Q peut être envisagée comme un outil pertinent pour l’étude des réflexions des enseignants sur leurs pratiques professionnelles.
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 | 0.141 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".