Observations from Quebec: The Emergence of a Research Culture in Education through Legitimacy and Universitarisation, 1940–2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article sets out the preliminary findings of a study on the emergence of a research culture in the field of teacher training, focusing specifically on the case of Laval University in Quebec (Canada). The authors first define some concepts and discuss the period when teacher training in normal schools was highly rudimentary, then focus mainly on the three types of university institution at the time (higher normal school, school of education and faculty of education). Based on a number of indicators, they determine how this research culture found a place for itself in, among other things, the universitarisation of teacher training. In the second part, the authors highlight some periods of disruption which reveal that a fledgling research culture appeared before 1955, truly emerging between 1955 and 1969, and gaining a dominant place and true legitimacy after 1969. The authors conclude by outlining the issues raised by this change in the institutional culture and argue that the emergence of a research culture in Quebec and elsewhere has changed the traditions and marked the transitions in the development of education and teacher training.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".