MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002778917 · doi:10.7202/1070383ar

Le rôle du développement professionnel dans la mise en oeuvre du modèle de la réponse à l’intervention

2020· article· fr· W3002778917 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnfance en difficulté · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’idée à la base du modèle de la réponse à l’intervention (RàI) apparaît relativement simple. Toutefois, de nombreuses écoles réalisent que son implantation s’avère plus complexe qu’il n’y paraît. Comme pour toutes les améliorations en éducation, l’implantation réussie repose sur un processus de développement professionnel (DP) des enseignants qui doit être soigneusement planifié et mis en oeuvre rigoureusement. Les études comparatives internationales montrent que le DP des enseignants constitue l’un des meilleurs moyens pour améliorer la qualité de l’enseignement. La réalisation d’une synthèse de recherches sur le développement professionnel nous a permis de répertorier cinq principes favorisant son efficacité. Nous expliquerons d’abord ces principes, puis nous verrons comment la Commission scolaire de la Rivière-du-Nord de St-Jérôme (Québec) a procédé à une implantation réussie du modèle RàI en lecture en mettant en place un processus de DP qui les respecte.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it