Le codesign d’une plateforme numérique fondé sur des principes au service de l’agentivité des enseignantes et des enseignants en contexte de développement professionnel | Co-Design of a Digital Platform Based on Principles Supporting Teachers’ Agency in the Context of Professional Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les enseignantes et les enseignants du collégial partagent avec les établissements d’enseignement la responsabilité de leur développement professionnel. Cet article a trait au codesign d’une plateforme numérique au service de l’agentivité des enseignants en situation de développement professionnel. Le processus de codesign a inclus le repérage des freins au développement professionnel ainsi que l’identification des buts de niveau motivationnel. Les résultats mettent l’accent sur les buts fonctionnels et opérationnels qui permettent de soutenir les buts de niveau motivationnel.College teachers share with educational institutions the responsibility for their professional development. This article deals with the co-design of a digital platform supporting teachers’ agency in the context of their professional development. The co-design process included the identification of barriers to professional development, as well as the identification of goals at the motivational level. Results emphasize the functional and operational goals supporting motivational goals.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it