La qualité éducative en pouponnière : évaluation des besoins de formation des éducatrices des 0 à 18 mois.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé: L’enquête québécoise sur la qualité des services de garde éducatifs Grandir en qualité (2015a) démontre que la qualité d’ensemble des services éducatifs offerts aux poupons est jugée d’acceptable à bonne, sans plus. Le niveau de formation et de scolarité du personnel éducateur étant un des facteurs déterminants de la qualité des services de garde éducatifs (Clarke-Stewart, Vandell, Burchinal, O’Brien & McCartney, 2002; Goelman, Doherty, Lero, LaGrange & Tougas, 2000; Harme & Pianta, 2001; Howes & Ritchie, 2003; NICHD, 2000, 2006), la mise en place d’une formation continue axée sur la pratique réflexive pour les éducatrices en pouponnière serait souhaitable, étant donné la complexité de leur travail. Cet article porte donc sur l’évaluation des besoins de formation chez les éducatrices en pouponnière, dans le but de bonifier la qualité du processus, et s’inscrit dans la phase origine de la recherche d’une recherche-développement inspirée du modèle de Loiselle et Harvey (2009). Abstract: A Québec survey on the quality of educational childcare services Grandir en qualité (2015a) shows that the overall quality of educational services offered to infants is considered acceptable to good, no more. The level of training and education of educators is one of the determining factors in the quality of educational childcare (Clarke-Stewart, Vandell, Burchinal, O'Brien & McCartney, 2002; Goelman, Doherty, Lero, LaGrange & Tougas, 2000; Harme & Pianta, 2001; Howes & Ritchie, 2003; NICHD, 2000, 2006) Additionally, reflexion practice-based continuing education for toddlers educators would be desirable given the complexity of their work. This articletherefore focuses on the assessment of training needs of toddler educators, with the aim of improving the quality of the process, and is part of the original phase of the search for research development inspired by Loiselle and Harvey’s model (2009).
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 | 0.023 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".