Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational research contributes, among other things, to a better understanding of the learning and teaching processes carried out in the field.Issue 59-2 brings together articles from a diversity of approaches and preoccupations relating to pedagogical practice, teacher training, and student learning.One of the first themes of this issue focuses on initial and in-service training of teachers, as well as the development of their professional identity.Fortier and Tremblay highlight developmental co-teaching as a promising alternative to traditional internships.In the same vein, Moinet, Frenay, Raemdonck, and März's study reports on the professional retraining of adults who choose to become primary education teachers.Ruberto, Beaulieu, Moreau, and Doré-Turgeon focus on the collaborative practices of remedial teachers in secondary school, while Fontaine, Moreau, Boily, and Livernoche analyze training-support systems for the implementation of programmes for the teaching and learning of reading and writing.Several articles and a Note from the Field explore innovative pedagogical approaches and their practical benefits.Payant and Dutil discuss taskbased language teaching (TBLT), and, for their part, Gagnon, Agundez-Rodriguez, Richard, Theis, and Michaud are interested in philosophical dialogue among secondary school students in Quebec and Switzerland.At the university level, Girouard-Gagné, Deschênes, Bégin-Caouette, Jones, Karram Stephenson, and Metcalfe explore the factors influencing Canadian professors' use of various pedagogical practices, while Gagné-Legault, Cimon-Paquet, and Véronneau question the perceptions of parents and adolescents in relation to parental solicitation and control of academic performance and engagement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.314 | 0.183 |
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".