Verbalisations écrites dans l’alternance : des traces explicites aux indicateurs plus implicites de développement professionnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans les formations à l’enseignement, les verbalisations écrites constituent autant des instruments au service du développement professionnel que des moyens pour les formés de montrer ce développement. Ainsi ces verbalisations contiennent à la fois les traces de développement que les étudiants choisissent de montrer et des indicateurs plus implicites accessibles par une analyse discursive de ces verbalisations. Cet article présente les particularités de l’écriture réflexive et les caractéristiques de deux dispositifs d’écriture réflexive destinés respectivement aux enseignants du primaire et du secondaire. Il analyse ces verbalisations écrites selon les deux niveaux de lecture et met en évidence qu’un grand nombre d’étudiants relate des actions régulées mais pas de conceptions ni de valeurs. Il s’attarde ensuite sur des indicateurs de développement professionnel révélés par une analyse discursive.
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 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".