Enseignement, mémoire, histoire: Les examens d’histoire de 4e secondaire du secteur de la formation générale au Québec (1970-2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Le présent article entend contribuer à la connaissance de l’enseignement de l’histoire au Québec en analysant les copies d’examen de fin d’année (juin) de 4e secondaire du secteur de la formation générale en Histoire du Québec et du Canada, puis en Histoire et éducation à la citoyenneté élaborés par le ministère de l’Éducation [du loisir et du sport] du Québec de 1970 à 2012. Cette analyse paraît instructive à plus d’un titre. Elle permet, entre autres, non seulement de suivre l’évolution des attentes du Ministère par rapport à l’enseignement de l’histoire du Québec sur une très longue période, mais de suivre au plus près les biais idéologiques, les perspectives méthodologiques et les choix épistémologiques des examinateurs du Ministère. Entreprendre l’analyse des épreuves annuelles, c’est toucher au plus près des tensions qui animent les relations entre faits et identités, histoire et mémoire. Abstract This article contributes to our understanding of the teaching of history in Quebec by analyzing fourth-year secondary school students’ final exams in the course History of Quebec and Canada—which later became History and Citizenship Education—elaborated by Quebec’s Ministry of Education (Recreation and Sport) from 1970 to 2012. Such an analysis proves enlightening in many respects. It not only constitutes an exceptional measure of the long-term evolution of the Ministry’s expectations when it comes to teaching history in Quebec, but also provides an indication of the Ministry’s ideological bias, methodological perspectives, and epistemological choices. By reviewing more than 40 years of annual exams, one can better understand the tensions that animate, in this particular context, the relations between facts and identities, history and memory.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".