Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les communautés de pratique (CP) sont maintenant mises en place dans une diversité de lieux de travail pour favoriser l’apprentissage et le partage de savoirs. L’auteur pose un regard réflexif sur son travail d’animateur et d’accompagnateur depuis douze ans du Forum des intervenants municipaux en développement social (FIMDS) à la Ville de Montréal. Cette CP multidisciplinaire répond au besoin de développer des compétences collectives pour mieux assumer les responsabilités dévolues aux villes en matière de développement social. Dressant un bilan critique des stratégies pédagogiques utilisées, l’auteur cible des conditions favorisant les apprentissages et un plus grand transfert de savoirs et d’expertises dans les milieux visés. Il se demande enfin comment exercer plus d’influence et assurer une pérennité, même si des enjeux de pouvoir entre des élus, des gestionnaires et des intervenants (incluant l’animateur) peuvent parfois freiner le développement d’une culture d’apprentissage et d’innovation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".