Réhabiliter la formation professionnelle : pour une gouvernance autonome, enracinée et postsecondaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La formation professionnelle (FP) au Québec occupe une place stratégique dans la réponse aux enjeux économiques, sociaux et éducatifs contemporains. Pourtant, elle demeure confinée à une structure administrative qui la traite comme une extension du secondaire, alors même que ses réalités, ses clientèles et ses exigences en font une formation de niveau postsecondaire. Cet article propose une analyse critique de cette incongruité, en soulignant les limites du modèle actuel de gouvernance, les conséquences de la centralisation des décisions, et la nécessité d’un virage structurel fondé sur trois piliers : reconnaissance postsecondaire, autonomie institutionnelle, et enracinement dans les milieux professionnels. À travers une revue de la littérature, des données terrain et des propositions concrètes, nous montrons que réformer la gouvernance de la FP est essentiel pour lui permettre de remplir pleinement sa mission sociale et économique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".