l’interdisciplinarité et la formation à l’enseignement: analyse de résultats de deux recherches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse les résultats de deux recherches menées auprès de futurs enseignants du primaire au Québec dans deux contextes distincts de formation, car les curriculums de formation initiale étaient différents. Après avoir contextualisé la question interdisciplinaire dans le système éducatif québécois et traité des composantes conceptuelles principales, l’analyse des résultats témoigne d’une connaissance conceptuelle superficielle de l’interdisciplinarité, mais surtout d’une très grande stabilité sur le plan des représentations de ce qu’elle signifie et de la manière d’y recourir en classe, de même que sur celui de la hiérarchisation des matières scolaires. De plus, les résultats obtenus montrent une très grande similitude avec ceux provenant de nos recherches sur les enseignants en exercice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".