Engagement en formation professionnelle initiale duale et perceptions de la qualité de la formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’engagement en formation constitue l’un de moteurs de l’apprentissage et de la réussite d’une formation. Cet engagement mérite d’être examiné pour en comprendre les sources et les conséquences au travers de divers contextes formatifs. Dans le cas du contexte de la formation professionnelle initiale duale en Suisse, les facteurs liés au degré d’engagement des apprenti·es sur les deux principaux lieux de formation (entreprise formatrice et école professionnelle) sont méconnus. Ainsi, cette étude avait pour objectif d’examiner comment les perceptions des apprenti·es quant à la qualité de leur formation peuvent expliquer leur engagement dans chacun des deux principaux lieux de formation. Les analyses ont permis de confirmer que les perceptions de la qualité de la formation prédisaient l’engagement au-delà de multiples caractéristiques individuelles ainsi que d’aspects motivationnels. Les résultats permettent de conclure à la pertinence de tenir compte de la façon dont les apprenti·es considèrent la qualité de leur formation pour constituer d’éventuels leviers sur lesquels agir pour soutenir leur engagement.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".