L’AGENTIVITÉ DES ENSEIGNANTS APRÈS UN MASTER DE FORMATION INTERNATIONALE : LES IMPLICATIONS SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT PROFESSIONNEL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, nous étudions l’agentivité des enseignants après leur participation à une maîtrise master de formation internationale en éducation à la recherche. 16 enseignants, originaires de divers pays africains, ont été soumis à un entretien semi-structuré à la fin d’un master de formation. Les données collectées ont été analysées qualitativement à travers des catégories thématiques. Les entretiens ont mis en lumière la façon dont les enseignants ont exprimé leur agentivité à la suite de leur participation au master de formation. A la fin du master, les aspects d’analyse de la perception d’agentivité pris en considération sont ceux en relation avec les choix professionnels, la communauté scholastique d’appartenance, les pratiques professionnelles acquises lors de la formation à la recherche ainsi que l’agentivité pour transformer les pratiques professionnelles personnelles et collectives.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".