Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir d’une revue de littérature systématique, nous montrons que la formation continue collégiale au Québec est peu représentée dans les publications spécialisées des collèges et qu’elle est généralement absente du champ de recherche en éducation, et ce, malgré son importance dans le secteur de la formation professionnelle et technique. D’abord, nous présentons le contexte de l’éducation et de la formation des adultes collégiale au Québec et montrons son importance comme secteur de formation spécifique de formation. Ensuite, nous présentons les résultats de la recherche documentaire exhaustive qui a été réalisé. À partir de ces résultats, nous montrons que, malgré sa place dans l’éducation des adultes, la formation continue collégiale au Québec demeure un impensé de la recherche. En guise de conclusion, nous proposons des hypothèses qui pourraient expliquer ce manque de visibilité et proposons d’ouvrir des perspectives de recherche sur cet objet d’étude qui mérite une attention particulière.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.004 |
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".