Mise au point d’exercices visant le développement d’habiletés interactives chez des stagiaires en enseignement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats de la phase d’opérationnalisation d’une recherche développement (Harvey et Loiselle, 2009). Il explicite la démarche réflexive-collaborative de mise à l’essai d’exercices pratiques visant le développement des habiletés interactives de gestion de classe de stagiaires en enseignement et souligne le potentiel de développement de l’habileté d’hyperperception chez les participants. Cette recherche s’inscrit dans le sillage des travaux ayant établi des liens étroits entre l’improvisation et l’enseignement (Azéma, 2015; Gagnon, 2010) ainsi que de ceux qui mettent en valeur la contribution d’un entraînement en improvisation au développement d’habiletés de gestion de classe (Lobman, 2005; Auteur, 2008; Auteur, 2006).
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".