Développement professionnel enseignant et schème de l’établissement formateur : étude de cas comparative d’établissements secondaires en Belgique francophone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Développement professionnel enseignant et schème de l'établissement formateur : étude de cas comparative d'établissements secondaires en Belgique francophone Formation et profession 33(1), 2025 • 1 ésumé Après avoir souligné le développement, simultanément théorique et normatif, du schème de l' établissement formateur, cet article en étudie les modalités de déploiement au sein de deux établissements de l' enseignement secondaire en Belgique francophone.Une étude de cas contrastés révèle des représentations et usages très différents des mêmes préconisations, la solidité et la cohérence des cultures organisationnelles locales face aux pressions externes et, enfin, la présence manifeste d' occasions d'apprentissage externes aux établissements, au sein d'un paysage plus large d'apprentissage professionnel.Les résultats soulignent aussi une diversité d'articulations possibles entre les établissements et les occasions externes d'apprentissage pour les enseignants.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".