MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995654661 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.1326

Les inégalités scolaires d’une régulation de l’éducation par le marché : le point de vue des professeurs du secteur public de Montréal

2009· article· fr· W1995654661 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Louis LeVasseur

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesCentralisationPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article brosse un tableau succinct de la nouvelle régulation de l’éducation en insistant surtout sur l’orientation démocratique que le ministère de l’Éducation comptait donner à la décentralisation, et présente ce que les enseignants disent des tensions qui existent désormais dans le système d’éducation entre une logique démocratique orientée vers la protection des élèves menacés d’échec scolaire, voire d’exclusion sociale, et une certaine logique libérale plus axée sur le droit des parents de choisir des services d’éducation et la libre concurrence entre les établissements, ce qui peut conduire à de nouvelles formes d’inégalités devant l’éducation. L’article montre que les enseignants donnent massivement la priorité dans leurs discours aux droits des parents, mais que plusieurs enseignants cherchent néanmoins, syncrétiquement, à concilier ce droit des parents avec des valeurs démocratiques.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207