La professionnalisation de l'enseignement supérieur au Canada : perception des étudiantes et étudiants entre 2010 et 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude s’intéresse à la fluctuation de la perception d’étudiantes et d’étudiants de la professionnalisation des études à la maîtrise et au doctorat dans les universités canadiennes. Des actrices et acteurs du secteur de l’enseignement supérieur ont suggéré de se référer à la professionnalisation des études supérieures afin de répondre à l’inadéquation entre études et emplois, une problématique importante dans un contexte global où l’économie est associée au savoir. Nous analysons cette perception de la professionnalisation des étudiantes et étudiants selon différentes variables scolaires et socioculturelles à l’aide de la sociologie de l’action publique. \n_____________________________________________________________________________ \nMOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : études supérieures, doctorat, maîtrise, perception, professionnalisation, université, inadéquation études-emploi, économie du savoir, référent global, référent sectoriel, sociologie de l’action publique.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".