MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1994956251 · doi:10.7202/055460ar

La structure idéologique des manuels de pédagogie québécois

2005· article· fr· W1994956251 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Vincent Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sociographiques · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous étudierons ici le système d'éducation du Québec à travers la doctrine idéologique dont s'est servi l'organisation scolaire pour fonder son action depuis le milieu du XIXe siècle. Le contenu idéologique des manuels de pédagogie officiellement en usage dans les écoles normales a servi à justifier périodiquement l'action du système d'enseignement en fonction des valeurs dominantes et en fonction de représentations particulières de la société québécoise. Le matériel soumis à l'analyse est constitué de cinq manuels, depuis celui de 1853 jusqu'à celui de 1948 encore en usage au moment de la rédaction de la thèse. Si l'on ne considère que le seul contenu proprement idéologique de ces manuels, notre matériel se présente comme une série de reformulations successives (1853, 1865, 1901, 1924 et 1948) de l'idéologie scolaire autorisée concernant l'enseignement public du niveau primaire et du niveau secondaire, et transmise institutionnellement aux futurs enseignants durant leur formation dans les écoles normales. Les deux premiers manuels (ceux de Valade et de Langevin) sont inclus dans la période d'existence politique du Bas-Canada d'avant la Confédération; les trois autres (celui de Rouleau, Ahern et Magnan, celui de Mgr Ross et celui de Vinette) ont été publiés sous le régime constitutionnel de la province de Québec.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches sociographiques→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→