Représentation de la difficulté scolaire et usage du programme personnalisé de réussite éducative (PPRE) dans le contexte managérial français de l'enseignement du premier degré : étude des discours d'acteurs impliqués à l'échelon d'un département
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our work in our professional area prompted us to conduct a study on a particular disposition from institutional, managerial and effective practices angles. Within the scope of an on-going larger international study currently being carried out, namely a comparative analysis in five different countries or regions (Quebec, Ontario, France Southern Switzerland (Ticino), Belgium) we questioned 5 French professionals, each involved in a different capacity in an inclusive school, about their conception of educational difficulties and specifically their perception of the “PPRE” system (a French Education Ministry programme aimed at tailoring individual programmes to aid students to succeed within the education system). Do these conceptions / perceptions lead to a pathological view of learning difficulty and to a certain degree of delegating of responsibility or externalising (Toullec-Théry, 2013) ? Should this be the case, the extent and development of collaborative teaching strategies, particularly between special-needs teachers and main-stream teachers, aimed at making learning situations accessible, would thereby be limited. The topic of our research is structured around a two-pronged question: To what extent do these 5 education professionals, perceive the « PPRE » system in its institutional, organisational and practical applications, as a response to learning difficulties? Do the programmes designed to deal with learning difficulties, such as the “PPRE”, actually contribute to the furthering of a collaborative approach to teaching strategies with the purpose of making education accessible to all ?
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 | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".