Les Cahiers d'exercices. Prolifération d'une nouvelle (?) forme de manuels scolaires. L'exemple du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first school exercise books appeared in Québec in 1882. Initially small, their production took off after World War II to such an extent that it has rivalled that of traditional textbooks over the past twenty years, at least in some disciplines. There are now more than 2,500 different exercise books. Published by definition for use in the schooling world, exercise books are subjected to the constraints imposed, notably, through the state approval process for teaching materials in print. The first period (1880–1960) witnessed a slow but steady increase in the publication of exercise books; however, traditional textbooks still dominated in both the classroom and the market place. The second period (1960–2000) saw the exercise book eat more and more into the dominance of the textbook. New currents in education and new programs created conditions favourable to an explosion in the use of exercise books; thus, during the 1990s, 45 percent of schoolbooks were exercise books. Certainly, the change in numbers was spectacular, but no less spectacular was the transformation of form and content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".