Une recherche collaborative visant à interroger un dispositif de coévaluation des stages en formation à l’enseignement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cette contribution, nous mettons l’accent sur un groupe de recherche collaborative centré sur les superviseurs de stage. Depuis trois ans, les acteurs interrogent le processus de coévaluation de stage dans des instituts de formation des enseignants. Notre visée est de montrer en quoi le partage de représentations sur l’objet à l’étude, la coévaluation de stage, la coconstruction d’une définition commune et l’analyse collégiale de données issues des pratiques des participants jouent sur la « qualité » de la recherche collaborative. Plus spécifiquement, nous cherchons à identifier les bénéfices et les freins de travailler un dispositif relatif à l’évaluation « en collaboration » au sein même d’une recherche collaborative.
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 | 0.110 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".