Les Preoccupations Ethiques D'enseignants Du Reseau Collegial Francophone Au Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apres avoir presente la demarche generale du projet de recherche et situe l’objectif et la methodologie, cet article rapporte et discute les principales preoccupations ethiques d’enseignantes et d’enseignants du collegial quebecois francophone, telles que degagees de huit groupes de discussion (focus groups) auxquels ont participe 63 enseignantes et enseig‐ nants en 2006‐2007. Il s’agit de preoccupations ethiques en rapport aux etudiants (finalite, evaluation, encadrement), aux collegues (comportements deplorables, difficulte a interve‐ nir) et a l’enseignement proprement dit (choix des contenus, maintien de l’expertise). Mots cles : preoccupations ethiques; profession enseignante; collegial; 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".