Collaboration école-famille au primaire: types de collaboration et degré de relation entre les partenaires.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of an action research aimed at identifying the types and degree of relation between partners in school-family collaboration activities developed by school staff from 25 elementary schools in the Saguenay region of the province of Quebec. Fifteen of these schools had a high proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The aim of this study was to identify school-family collaboration activities carried out in these schools so to develop continuing education. To do this, four group interviews and thirty semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with school staff responsible for setting up school-family collaboration activities. Written material was also considered. The content analysis showed that almost half of the activities (49%) offered to parents related to their volunteering and that nearly all the activities (97%) corresponded to the lowest degree of relationship between partners, namely consultation and mutual information. Results show that these activities, although numerous and varied, do little to promote the perseverance and academic success of students, especially when they come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The development of this continuing education program should thus allow teachers to develop a closer bond of trust with parents, to promote a more egalitarian attitude and to ensure two-way communication and a better sharing of responsibilities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it