MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406699764 · doi:10.7202/1115339ar

Que mesurent exactement les évaluations de l’enseignement par les étudiant.e.s ? Ce que l’on sait sur ce sujet et ce qui est manquant

2024· article· fr· W4406699764 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Layla Déry, Sule Tomkinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitique et Sociétés · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’évaluation de l’enseignement par les étudiant.e.s (ÉEÉ) demeure le principal outil utilisé pour estimer les compétences du corps professoral ; leur embauche, leur agrégation et leur promotion, tant aux États-Unis qu’au Canada, malgré les critiques formulées à l’égard de sa légitimité et sa validité en tant qu’instrument de mesure. Cependant, une littérature abondante et majoritairement en anglais dénonce la présence de biais qui compromettent les résultats des ÉEÉ avec pour corollaire des pratiques discriminatoires envers les femmes, les personnes racisées et les personnes issues d’autres groupes marginalisés. Cet article présente un résumé de cette littérature et fait quelques suggestions pour de futures recherches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.280
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitique et SociétésSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207