MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410832967 · doi:10.26034/vd.fpeq.2015.192

cadre de référence éthique pour les enseignants. Pour des valeurs partagées

2015· article· fr· W4410832967 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christiane Gohier, France Jutras, Luc Desautels

Bibliographic record

VenueFormation et pratiques d’enseignement en question · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article porte sur les valeurs promues dans des cadres de référence éthiques et des codes de déontologie professionnelle des enseignants. Après une clarification lexicale des notions d’éthique, de morale, de déontologie, de valeurs et de normes, on présentera les balises éthiques énoncées par deux organismes au Québec ainsi que dans deux codes de déontologie des enseignants canadiens, (Nouveau-Brunswick et Ontario), en faisant ressortir les valeurs qui leur servent de fondement. Enfin, on exposera les points saillants d’une discussion sur les valeurs promues dans le code de déontologie de l’Ontario dans le cadre d’une recherche collaborative conduite auprès de ces enseignants sur le processus de réflexion éthique.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.308 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFormation et pratiques d’enseignement en questionSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207