Validation d’un instrument de mesure des projets professionnels chez les étudiants en psychologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article décrit la démarche de validation d’un instrument permettant d’appréhender le contenu des projets professionnels des étudiants en psychologie. Cette démarche a consisté en trois études réalisées auprès d’étudiants de première année (n = 151, n = 203, n = 362). Les qualités psychométriques de l’outil ont été vérifiées par l’intermédiaire d’analyses factorielles et de cohérence interne. Au terme de la troisième étude, les résultats de l’analyse factorielle par la méthode des ULS (unweighted least squares) avec rotation varimax révèlent une structure à cinq facteurs (α entre 0,85 et 0,95). Ces facteurs reflètent cinq profils professionnels (entrepreneurial, clinique, éducatif, social et généraliste) établis sur la base de différents descripteurs liés à la profession de psychologue (les lieux, objets, actions et secteurs d’activité).
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 | 0.053 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".