Reconnaître, coopérer, transformer : vers une santé au travail enseignant fondée sur l’agir collectif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette recherche vise à comprendre les dynamiques de coopération au travail dans la prévention en santé chez les enseignants. À partir d’une révision critique des théories de la coopération, elle explore les interactions possibles entre direction et personnel enseignant. Une observation participante au sein de l’implantation de comités de santé mentale a permis d’analyser les formes concrètes de coopération, y compris conflictuelles, dans deux écoles secondaires québécoises. L’étude de cas révèle que la coopération est un processus traversé par des rapports de pouvoir, des savoirs professionnels convergents, mais contradictoires et des enjeux d’intercompréhension professionnelle. La conclusion de l’étude propose de concevoir la coopération comme un levier stratégique de transformation organisationnelle, conciliant performance, qualité du travail et santé des personnes enseignantes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".