MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W140243475

ÉDUQUER À LA CITOYENNETÉ DÉLIBÉRATIVE : LE DÉFI D’EXERCER UN LEADERSHIP SOCIOPOLITIQUE POUR RECTIFIER LES INÉGALITÉS À L’ÉCOLE ET EN DÉMOCRATIE / RECTIFYING INEQUALITIES IN SCHOOL AND IMPROVING DEMOCRACY THROUGH DELIBERATIVE CITIZENSHIP ...

2007· article· fr· W140243475 on OpenAlexaff
Marc–André Éthier, David Lefrançois

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Practices and Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipDeliberationIdeal (ethics)DemocracySociologyHumanitiesPoliticsObstacleParticipatory democracyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les responsables de l’ecole secondaire quebecoise affirment developper la capacite des eleves de deliberer de facon critique a propos d’enjeux sociaux et scolaires au moyen de l’education a la citoyennete. Cependant, la deliberation scolaire peut conforter des inegalites sociales ou politiques interindividuelles. La prise en compte d’un tel obstacle conduit a aborder la question suivante : a quelles conditions l’education a la citoyennete preparera-t-elle les eleves a combler l’ecart entre la realite des injustices sociales et l’ideal de la citoyennete libre et egale ? RECTIFYING INEQUALITIES IN SCHOOL AND IMPROVING DEMOCRACY THROUGH DELIBERATIVE CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION: THE CHALLENGE OF EXERTING A NEW SOCIOPOLITICAL LEADERSHIP In high school, one of the most important stated aims of citizenship education is to develop the capacity to deliberate critically about public and democratic stakes. However, a deliberative community of students might reinforce inequalities based on social or political classes. This obstacle leads us to deal with a challenging question: which conditions in school must be fulfilled so that citizenship education may prepare students to reduce the gap between the ideal of free and equal citizenship, and the not so free and equal social reality?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.039
Scholarly communication0.0160.008
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.341
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.115 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGillSame topicEducational Practices and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207