La communauté d’apprentissage : ambiguïtés et enjeux de la notion en Amérique du Nord, Revue internationale de communication et de socialisation,1(1), 103-141
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article porte un regard critique sur l’usage de plus en plus fréquent de la notion de communauté d’apprentissage dans le champ de l’éducation au Québec. Après avoir signalé quelques repères historiques de son utilisation dans la documentation gouvernementale québécoise, il recourt à son emploi passé et contemporain, en insistant sur son usage aux États-Unis, pour en dégager le poids socio-idéologique dans nos sociétés occidentales en profond changement. Enfin, l’article fait ressortir le bien-fondé éventuel d’une utilisation de cette idée, mais en mettant en relief certaines exigences et conditions que sa mise en œuvre réclame dans un contexte éducatif. Ces restrictions importantes forcent à s’interroger sur les fondements qui sous-tendent le choix et le succès actuel de la notion de communauté en éducation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".