MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effets de la formation à l’enseignement sur les pratiques des nouveaux enseignants-chercheurs

2017· article· fr· W2805664218 on OpenAlexaff
Louise Ménard, Christian Hoffmann, Geneviève Lameul

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherche & formation · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La formation à l’enseignement a été mise en place par les universités pour inciter les nouveaux enseignants-chercheurs à se centrer davantage sur l’apprentissage étudiant. Ce dispositif favorise-t-il vraiment un tel changement de paradigme ? Les pratiques des enseignants formés se distinguent-elles de ceux sans formation ? Ce texte présente les données collectées par entretiens et observations auprès de huit nouveaux enseignants formés et de quinze sans formation. Il semble que les enseignants, dans leur ensemble, ont des pratiques qui dépassent la transmission de contenu et que les enseignants formés ne se distinguent pas de ceux sans formation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.494
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.005 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherche & formationSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207