Mise en lumière des dynamiques de coproduction de connaissances lors d’entretiens collectifs collaboratifs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette contribution vise à examiner les dynamiques qui ont émergé d’une démarche de recherche-formation collaborative ayant misé sur des entretiens collectifs, afin d’éclairer le phénomène grandissant de l’intégration professionnelle d’enseignants formés à l’étranger (EFÉ) dans les écoles québécoises qui semble problématique sous divers aspects. Une analyse de conversations a été déployée pour identifier comment se négocient les expertises d’une culture de recherche et de cultures professionnelles au service d’une démarche de coproduction de connaissances jugées pertinentes par les deux communautés concernées. Trois dynamiques ont été identifiées : le développement d’une posture compréhensive, la production de nouvelles interprétations ajustées et l’affirmation de sa compétence d’acteur. La mise en lumière de ces dynamiques amène à réfléchir aux stratégies de conception du dispositif collaboratif et d’animation des entretiens collectifs servant la démarche de coproduction de connaissances.
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 | 0.023 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".