Les rapports à l’expertise scientifique de futures enseignantes du primaire interprétés sous l’angle des postures déficitaire, non déficitaire et antidéficitaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans une recherche doctorale, nous avons construit une typologie de rapports a l’expertise scientifique (rapports de dependance, de coexistence, de cooperation et d’empowerment) de futures enseignantes du primaire (Groleau, 2017). Dans cet article, nous interpretons ces rapports a l’expertise scientifique a la lumiere des postures deficitaire, non deficitaire et antideficitaire que les participantes entretiennent face aux citoyens et aux citoyennes. Certaines entretiennent une posture deficitaire, en ce sens qu’elles considerent qu’ils souffrent d’un deficit de connaissances, de comprehension ou d’interet relatif aux technosciences. D’autres participantes expriment une posture non deficitaire envers eux. D’autres encore veillent a combattre la posture deficitaire : elles entretiennent une posture antideficitaire. Nous montrons enfin comment les rapports a l’expertise scientifique s’arriment avec chacune de ces trois postures.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".