What is the Meaning of the Integration of the Cultural Dimension into Schools, According to the Official Discourse of the Province of Quebec?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1992, Quebec’s Ministry of Education1and Ministry of Culture and Communications have been creating programs designed to integrate a cultural dimension into schools – a process requiring partnerships between teachers and professionals in the cultural domain. This domain comprises the objects and practices pertaining to the realm of arts and aesthetics and the values which are associated with them, namely expressivity, subjectivity, emotions, sensitivity, singularity, imagination, creativity and feelings (Kerlan, 2004). What does this integration mean, according to Quebec’s official discourse? To answer this question, we relied on sociology of justification theory (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1991; Boltanski & Chiapello, 1999, 2002) and used discourse and content analysis to examine Quebec’s official discourse. Our results suggest that this discourse relies on many definitions of culture and justice. This plurality blurs the meaning of the integration of the cultural dimension and requires that teachers delineate it by themselves.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".