MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292508301 · doi:10.7202/1086391ar

La référentialisation : une façon de modéliser l’évaluation de programme, entre théorie et pratique. Vers une comparaison des approches au Québec et en France

2006· article· fr· W4292508301 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gérard Figari, Claire Tourmen

Bibliographic record

VenueMesure et évaluation en éducation · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesValuation (finance)PhilosophyPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous proposons de distinguer, en nous inspirant des théorisations de l’évaluation, des éléments invariants qui seraient constitutifs de l’activité évaluative. Nous tentons ensuite de comparer la façon dont ils sont utilisés et nommés dans des pratiques d’évaluation de « programme/dispositif », en France et au Québec. Nous proposons enfin une modélisation de l’évaluation de « programme/dispositif », qui touche à la fois à l’objet et à l’activité d’évaluation sur la base de ses invariants (démarche théorique) et qui peut se décliner, dans la pratique, sous forme de protocole méthodologique : la « référentialisation ».

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMesure et évaluation en éducationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207