Le naufrage du projet de programme d’histoire « nationale »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au coeur de 2006, une vive polémique a éclaté à propos de la réforme du programme d’histoire nationale du secondaire, alors même qu’elle était en cours de préparation au ministère de l’Éducation. Pourquoi ce projet de réforme a-t-il donné lieu à une telle polémique ? Quels en étaient exactement les enjeux ? Quels étaient les intervenants et les buts visés ? Dans un premier temps, l’article tente de répondre à ces questions en examinant les circonstances de la polémique. Puis, l’article rappelle comment se sont transformés les rapports entre éducation historique et éducation à la citoyenneté, entre histoire scolaire et histoire savante, et ce qu’ils sont devenus aujourd’hui. Enfin, les auteurs se demandent si la polémique était justifiée scientifiquement, et légitime socialement.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".