Les programmes d’insertion professionnelle pour les enseignants débutants au Québec : mesures offertes et retombées perçues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to facilitate socialization of new teachers and avoid early career attrition, schools and education systems around the world offer induction programs. The purpose of this article is to examine the supports offered to early career teachers [ECTs] and the perceived benefits of induction programs in the province of Quebec. The data are derived from a survey (n = 101) and semi-structured interviews (n = 15) with ECTs who participated in the induction programs. The results highlighted the variety of supports during the early career teaching and their positive psychological, professional, and ecological impacts on beginning teachers. However, the level of satisfaction among beginning teachers was found to be somewhat uneven. Negative experiences related in particular to the relevance of the support provided to teachers, their interaction with professional tasks, perceived overload, and the resulting feelings of stress. In short, the provision of induction programs requires discernment in order to increase their quality, accessibility, and efficiency, while minimizing the potential adverse effects for ECTs. Keywords: teacher induction, induction programs, teacher support, effects, typology, beginning teachers, Quebec
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".