Endosser une posture d’auteur en formation professionnelle pour modifier ses conceptions sur l’écrit(ure)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article interroge la place du rapport à l’écriture en tant qu’outil de développement professionnel. L’objectif est de décrire la transformation du rapport à l’écriture de vingt enseignantes à la suite d’une formation «immersive» aux ateliers d’écriture de L. Calkins (1986) en ciblant les conceptions et les affects liés aux pratiques d’écriture. Pour ce faire, les enseignantes ont répondu à deux questionnaires et cinq d’entre elles ont pris part à un entretien. Les résultats montrent que la double casquette de la formatrice, elle-même enseignante, et l’expérience d’écriture en contexte professionnel semblent constituer des principes actifs de formation ayant exercé un rôle de levier dans la consolidation, le questionnement ou la modification du rapport à l’écriture des participantes.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".