Évaluation des enseignants permanents du secondaire au Québec : quelle démarche préconiser selon des enseignants et des directeurs d’école ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
valuation des enseignants permanents du secondaire au Qubec : quelle dmarche prconiser selon des enseignants et des directeurs d'cole ? Formation et profession 28(3), 2020 18 sum Au Qubec, diffrents crits professionnels et scientifiques concluent que l' valuation des enseignants permanents du secondaire est peu pratique et qu' elle est gnralement rejete par les enseignants ainsi que par leurs syndicats. Toutefois, l' opinion des principales personnes concernes par cette pratique demeure sousdocumente dans la province. Cet article communique les rsultats d'une tude descriptive mene auprs d' enseignants permanents (n=5) et de directions d' coles secondaires (n=3) qui visait documenter leur opinion au sujet de la dmarche d' valuation des enseignants permanents prconiser. Le discours des participants recueilli l'aide d' entrevues individuelles permet de tracer les contours d'une pratique d' valuation.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".