L’appropriation des principes de flexibilité de la pédagogie universelle : une étude de cas en contexte universitaire Québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En contexte universitaire québécois, la diversification de la population étudiante soulève plusieurs défis (Vagneux & Girard, 2014). L’organisation actuelle des services répond uniquement aux étudiants ayant un diagnostic par la mise en place d’interventions individualisées. La mise en œuvre des principes de flexibilité de la pédagogie universelle apparait comme une piste de solution avantageuse puisqu’elle soutient la prise en compte de cette diversité autrement que par un diagnostic (Orr & Bachman-Hammig, 2009). Cette étude de cas réalisée auprès de professeurs ou de chargés de cours en contexte universitaire québécois vise à mieux comprendre le processus d’appropriation des principes de flexibilité de la pédagogie universelle. Les résultats décrivent cette démarche d’appropriation et ce que les participants comprennent de la pédagogie universelle.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".