UN FORUM DE DISCUSSION ENTRE FORMATEURS DANS LE CADRE D'UN STAGE EN ENSEIGNEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME. Cet article presente l’experimentation d’un forum de discussion asynchrone avec des formateurs de stagiaires. Des enseignants associes et des superviseurs, dans le contexte de la reforme de la formation initiale a l’enseignement au secondaire, ont echange sur l’accompagnement pendant la duree d’un stage en vue de contribuer a l’harmonisation de leurs interventions. Le discours des participants fait ressortir une experience positive au regard de la construction de connaissances, en particulier, pour les nouveaux enseignants associes. DISCUSSION FORUM: SYNCHRONISING MENTORSHIP WITH TEACHERS IN TRAINING ABSTRACT. This article describes an experiment using online asynchronous discussion among student-teacher educators. In the context of Quebec’s reform of teacher education at the secondary level, cooperating teachers and uiversity-based supervisors used online communication to provide consistent feedback. The results offer evidence of a positive learning experience, especially for new cooperating teachers.
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 | 0.017 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".