Faire réfléchir des artistes en formation à l’enseignement des arts à des tensions identitaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le modèle du professionnel réflexif (Schön, 1994), adopté dans la plupart des formations à l’enseignement au Québec, incite les formateurs à développer des moyens pour faire réfléchir les étudiants. L’étude présentée vise à comprendre quels effets un dispositif à visée réflexive (Maleyrot, 2015) portant sur des tensions identitaires (Kaddouri, 2002; 2006) peut-il avoir sur la construction identitaire (Dubar, 1991) d’artistes se formant à l’enseignement? L’analyse de cinquante-trois bilans réflexifs des participants sur les apports du dispositif révèle ses retombées en affinité avec ceux documentés par la recherche : «pouvoir d’agir accru» (Chaubet et Gervais, 2014), «optimisme», «énergisation», sentiment d’efficacité accru, sentiment d’appartenance augmenté et empowerment (Brockbank et McGill, 2007; Chaubet, Kaddouri, Fischer, 2016; Osterman et Kottkamp 2004).
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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.
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".