Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente l'utilisation de l'analyse par théorisation ancrée, telle que décrite par Barney Glaser et Anselm Strauss (1967), dans le cadre d'une recherche en éducation.Cette recherche visait la compréhension, la description et la modélisation du processus de développement et de maintien de l'engagement professionnel chez des enseignantes du primaire.L'analyse des données, recueillies auprès de douze enseignantes de la Commission scolaire des Draveurs de Gatineau, a permis l'exploration de trois catégories conceptuelles liées au processus d'engagement professionnel de ces enseignantes.La ligne narrative qui s'est élaborée a permis de dégager les paramètres du processus central de la recherche, s'engager dans son travail, d'en déterminer les sources de même que les effets et de lier le tout en un processus cohérent contribuant à donner un sens à la vie des participantes à cette recherche.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.051 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.527 | 0.271 |
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".