Les retombées de la participation d’enseignantes du primaire à un projet de recherche-action au sujet de la mise en oeuvre de pratiques différenciées d’enseignement de l’écriture sur leur développement professionnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Realisee aupres de six enseignantes du primaire, cette recherche-action visait a coconstruire et a mettre en oeuvre des pratiques differenciees d’enseignement de l’ecriture aupres d’eleves de milieux defavorises. Cet article presente les resultats du volet formation (Guay et Prud’homme, 2018) de cette recherche-action et decrit les effets de la participation d’enseignantes a cette etude sur leur developpement professionnel. Les resultats montrent des acquis dans toutes les dimensions du modele de Clarke et Hollingsworth (2002). L’analyse du rapport couts/retombees et de la perennite des acquis met en perspective la conclusion sur l’efficacite de ce type de dispositif de developpement professionnel.
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 | 0.046 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".