MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415289808 · doi:10.21432/cjlt29040

Analysing French Teacher Communities Producing Online Resources: New perspectives on teacher agency

2025· article· en· W4415289808 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Georges‐Louis Baron, Solène Zablot

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Practices and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Citizen journalismParticipatory action researchRaising (metalworking)Order (exchange)Academic freedomEducational researchPhenomenonFreedom of information

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online resources have become an important reality in education, accompanied by the phenomenon of the production, modification, and wide dissemination of educational resources by communities of teachers. This article explores the situation in France. First, we recall previous research on how teachers cooperate in order to create online resources. We distinguish between several types of collectives (captive communities, activist communities, proto-communities) and focus on their dynamics. Doing so implies considering the subjects as well as the instruments used and the social systems within which they evolve. Second, the issue of teacher agency relative to educational resources is analysed. In France, teachers are granted great freedom of pedagogical methods, a freedom not seen in all countries. Therefore, we analyse the activities of these collectives to understand how they view their activity and their role, specifically when using learning materials in class. An important related issue is the eagerness of administration to rely on evidence-based practice for orienting teacher action. We suggest that participatory research is a good investment for raising meaningful issues and proposing possible, short-term solutions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicEducational Practices and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207