Des conditions de l'innovation dans la formation des étudiants-professeurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 2019, Bernard et Fluckiger titrent en introduction : « Innovation technologique, innovation pédagogique : une relation riche et contrastée ». Ils mettent en exergue les discours injonctifs des pouvoirs publics. Pourtant, selon Cros (1997), l’innovation est « le poumon de l’école ». Dans ce contexte contrasté, nous proposons une approche systémique. D’abord, nous quantifions trois communications institutionnelles, révélateurs des objectifs de l’exosystème. Dans cet environnement prescriptif pouvant conduire au rejet, nous présentons ensuite un microsystème de formation destiné à des sujets : des étudiants-professeurs. Nous évaluons alors les productions des étudiants-professeurs à l’aide de critères observant l’innovation technopédagogique. Enfin, nous tentons de déterminer des contraintes et des leviers en formation autorisant l’innovation technopédagogique.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".