Les Preoccupations Ethiques D'enseignants Du Reseau Collegial Francophone Au Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après avoir présenté la démarche générale du projet de recherche et situé l’objectif et la méthodologie, cet article rapporte et discute les principales préoccupations éthiques d’enseignantes et d’enseignants du collégial québécois francophone, telles que dégagées de huit groupes de discussion (focus groups) auxquels ont participé 63 enseignantes et enseig‐ nants en 2006‐2007. Il s’agit de préoccupations éthiques en rapport aux étudiants (finalité, évaluation, encadrement), aux collègues (comportements déplorables, difficulté à interve‐ nir) et à l’enseignement proprement dit (choix des contenus, maintien de l’expertise). Mots clés : préoccupations éthiques; profession enseignante; collégial; groupe de discussion (focus group) After outlining this research study’s general approach, objectives and methodology, we identify and discuss the main ethical concerns of teachers in the Francophone college sys‐ tem in Quebec. The data were gathered in 2006—2007 from 63 teachers who took part in eight focus groups. Their ethical concerns were with students (goals, evaluation, educa‐ tional environment), colleagues (regrettable behaviour, difficulty of intervening), and teaching itself (choice of content, maintaining expertise). Keywords: ethical concerns, teaching profession, college, focus group
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".