MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546018842 · doi:10.7202/1000316ar

La diversité ethnoculturelle dans les programmes français de sciences et technologie de l’Ontario : une analyse comparative entre le programme de 1998 et celui de 2007

2010· article· fr· W1546018842 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Donatille Mujawamariya, Mirela Moldoveanu

Bibliographic record

VenueReflets Revue d’intervention sociale et communautaire · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario (MEO) a procédé récemment à une réforme des programmes d’enseignement. En vigueur depuis septembre 2008, le nouveau programme de sciences de la 1 re à la 8 e année prône une éducation antidiscriminatoire. Cette visée se reflète-t-elle dans ce programme? En quoi le nouveau programme se distingue-t-il de l’ancien au chapitre de l’éducation antidiscriminatoire? Pour répondre à ces questions, notre étude propose une comparaison des programmes en français de sciences et technologie de la 1 re à la 8 e année, celui de 1998 et celui de 2007, afin de mettre en lumière la place qu’ils réservent à la diversité ethnoculturelle. S’inscrivant dans une perspective d’éducation scientifique multiculturelle, notre analyse s’appuie sur la typologie des approches multiculturelles de Banks (1989). Les résultats montrent qu’au-delà de la sensibilité exprimée dans les fondements, ces programmes ne laissent que peu de place à la diversité ethnoculturelle dans les attentes et les contenus d’apprentissage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.328 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReflets Revue d’intervention sociale et communautaireSame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207