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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".