Le sentiment d’auto-efficacité personnelle d’enseignants du secondaire : comparaison entre classe régulière et classe spéciale. Revue internationale de communication et de socialisation, 3(1), 77-91
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le cadre d’une recherche descriptive, le sentiment d’auto-efficacité des enseignants québécois du secondaire (langues, sciences et mathématiques) selon le contexte d’enseignement (classes régulière, spéciale ou mixte) a été analysé. Pour ce faire, des enseignants ont été interrogés à l’aide d’un questionnaire basé sur l’échelle d’auto-efficacité des enseignants. Ce questionnaire a été soumis à 253 enseignants d’écoles secondaires du Québec. Les résultats montrent peu de différences significatives entre les trois groupes d’enseignants, sauf en ce qui concerne la capacité d’adaptation du niveau des travaux, la gestion des cas difficiles et l’importance de l’influence familiale sur les apprentissages des élèves. Les résultats obtenus ont été comparés à ceux d’une autre recherche utilisant le même échantillon et portant sur l’attitude des enseignants envers l’inclusion scolaire.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".