Funciones de los Textos Escolares: Un Análisis Comparativo del Contexto de Quebec y Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El artículo presenta los resultados de un análisis comparativo de la documentación oficial de Quebec y Ontario respecto a las funciones concedidas a los textos escolares. Por un lado, este análisis tiene por objeto identificar las distintas funciones asociadas a los textos escolares en cada una de estas dos provincias canadienses y, por otro, mostrar la influencia potencial de estas funciones en su utilización en el aula. Los resultados evidencian que la implementación de currículums que promueven una perspectiva constructivista, se realiza sin que las funciones de los textos escolares sean problematizadas de manera rigurosa. Los marcos evaluativos nos llevan a concluir que textos escolares representan a la vez resúmenes de los programas de estudio, herramientas de formación e información tanto para los docentes como para alumnos y vectores de valores socioculturales. Por consiguiente, la concepción de textos escolares se muestra poco congruente con las orientaciones educativas de tipo constructivista.Palabras clave: Funciones del texto escolar, análisis comparativo, Quebec, Ontario. This paper presents the results of a comparative analysis of official documents from Quebec and Ontario with regards to the functions of textbooks in science education. This analysis aims, in part, to reveal the various functions associated with textbooks in each of these Canadian provinces, as well as to expose their potential influence on how textbooks are used in the classroom. The results illustrate that the implementation of new curricula favouring a constructivist perspective was implemented without the status or role of textbooks being put into any in-depth question. The evaluation criteria lead to the conception of textbooks representing a condensed curriculum, training tools and information for teachers, tools for informing and training students as well as vectors for sociocultural values. As of yet, the conception of textbooks seem to be incongruent with the educational orientations that aspire to constructivism.Keywords: Functions of textbooks, comparative analysis, Quebec, Ontario.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".