Expérience de création collective en art dramatique : approches pédagogiques et apprentissages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet essai à caractère ethnographique a pour objet l’analyse rétrospective d’une recherche menée en 2016. Il suit la trajectoire de deux formatrices engagées dans un processus de création en art dramatique auprès de deux groupes dont l’un est issu du milieu communautaire et l’autre, du milieu universitaire. Cette nouvelle analyse, réalisée à partir de journaux de bord, de notes de terrain et d’entretiens, a permis de faire émerger les apprentissages des formatrices et de les considérer à la lumière de ceux qu’ont acquis les participant·es. Dans cette mise en écho des différentes expériences, quatre catégories ont été dégagées, autant de conditions pour que puissent advenir des relations et des situations d’apprentissage dynamiques : l’esprit d’ouverture des formatrices, l’engagement des participant·es, la collaboration / coopération et la prise de risque de tous et de toutes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".