Bibliographic record
Abstract
La discussion sur la conscience historique en enseignement de l’histoire au Canada s’inscrit dans un contexte intellectuel et social particulier, marque par de profondes transformations dans nos rapports au passe et nos comprehensions de l’histoire. En effet, les historiens, didacticiens et enseignants en histoire, ici comme ailleurs, sont aux prises d’un probleme qui, selon Seixas (2012b), est a la fois epistemologique (comment arrivons- nous a connaitre le passe?) et ontologique (comment nous situons-nous dans le temps en tant qu’etres dotes d’historicite?). D’ou l’interet, reellement ressenti en didactique de l’histoire canadienne, de mieux comprendre la notion de conscience historique. Toutefois, la discussion demeure disparate et dispersee. Mon intention dans cet article est donc d’en faire un etat des lieux par l’entremise d’une revue critique de la litterature. Je presenterai d’abord le contexte dans lequel s’insere la discussion sur la conscience historique et tenterai, ensuite, de dresser un portrait des de nitions, des etudes et des justi cations du concept. Cet article fait valoir le besoin crucial d’approfondir la question de la conscience historique, afin qu’elle puisse servir dans les debats portant sur l’histoire scolaire et publique au Canada.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".