MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413781769 · doi:10.7202/1119023ar

Sentiment de compétence des enseignant·e·s des cycles 1 et 2 face à l’enseignement musical. Une étude exploratoire

2025· article· fr· W4413781769 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Chardonnens, F. Pasquier

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue musicale OICRM · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiverse Music Education Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologySociologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le contexte de l’enseignement primaire helvétique, cette recherche examine le sentiment de compétence des enseignant·e·s en éducation musicale et place l’étude dans le nouveau contexte de la didactique musicale spécifique. Selon de précédentes études, l’enseignement musical pose des difficultés aux enseignant·e·s généralistes au primaire. Cette recherche exploratoire tente ainsi de déterminer leur posture face à ces difficultés et s’insère dans les dernières recherches parues en didactique musicale pour proposer des pistes d’amélioration de la formation de base et de la formation continue. L’étude qualitative analyse l’action de 12 enseignant·e·s pendant des leçons de musique. Les données permettent de décrire l’action enseignante en mettant en auto-confrontation les stratégies déclarées par ces enseignant·e·s et leurs actes. Les résultats démontrent que ces enseignant·e·s répondent aux exigences professionnelles dans la mesure de leurs possibilités. Cette recherche exploratoire permet de mieux comprendre les difficultés et les besoins des enseignant·e·s face à la musique. Elle démontre un sentiment de compétence parfois précaire et conduit à des réflexions sur des actions futures, notamment pour la formation continue ou encore l’élaboration d’un référentiel de compétences.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue musicale OICRMSame topicDiverse Music Education InsightsFrench-language works237,207