Que faire de la parole des élèves? La professionnalité enseignante à l’épreuve des dispositifs de prévention du décrochage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour prévenir ou résoudre les processus de décrochage scolaire, les politiques éducatives françaises promeuvent des dispositifs suscitant la parole des élèves (tutorat, accompagnement). Ces dispositifs, vecteurs de « personnalisation » de l’enseignement, envisagent la parole de l’élève d’une manière alternative à la forme scolaire dominante. Pour étudier l’appropriation de ces dispositifs par les agents chargés de leur mise en oeuvre, nous avons soumis à des membres du corps professoral, lors d’une formation à la prévention du décrochage, un questionnaire évaluant la pertinence de différents outils les incitant à travailler sur la parole des élèves. Nous constatons que, pour ces enseignantes et enseignants, ces outils apparaissent secondaires, subsidiaires ou chronophages, à la périphérie de leur territoire professionnel. Nous montrons que ces outils sont envisagés avec des schèmes professionnels qui neutralisent leur portée.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".