Un développement professionnel durable ? Les clés de l’interdisciplinarité et de la créativité pour la formation des enseignants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au travers de l’exemple d’un dispositif de formation à la créativité pour des enseignants suisses romands, cet article vise à analyser comment créativité et interdisciplinarité peuvent représenter des clés de professionnalisation dans une perspective de durabilité. En croisant trois cadres théoriques liées respectivement à la créativité, l’interdisciplinarité et la professionnalisation, nous montrons en quoi ces concepts se recoupent et permettent d’éclairer des données recueillies en amont, durant et au terme du dispositif étudié. Il apparait ainsi que le développement de la créativité interdisciplinaire s’inscrit comme une composante de durabilité des compétences, pratiques, savoir-être et savoir-faire des enseignants, malgré quelques limites qui représentent autant d’opportunités d’optimiser la 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".