Étude des outils pour mesurer la relation pédagogique en vue d’une utilisation en contexte postsecondaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La majorité des études portant sur la relation pédagogique a été menée auprès d’élèves du primaire et du secondaire. Les études qui s’intéressent aux étudiants du postsecondaire sont beaucoup moins nombreuses, malgré l’importance des retombées qu’elle peut avoir pour eux. L’objectif est d’explorer les écrits scientifiques qui portent spécifiquement sur la mesure de la relation pédagogique afin d’identifier les instruments de mesure pertinents pour le contexte postsecondaire. Les résultats montrent que la majorité des chercheurs ont recours au questionnaire autorapporté pour mesurer le concept de la relation pédagogique. Il n’existe toutefois pas de consensus sur la manière d’opérationnaliser ce concept. Pour certains, il s’agit d’un construit multidimensionnel, alors que d’autres évoquent la possibilité d’un construit bidimensionnel, voire unidimensionnel.
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 | 0.050 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".