Le rôle de l’État dans l’encadrement de la profession enseignante au Québec et en Ontario de 1960 à 2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RésuméCet article présente une analyse comparative historique et sociologique du rôle de l’État dans la mise en place des formations professionnelles à l’enseignement au Québec et en Ontario pendant les années 1960 à 2000. Nous sommes d’accord avec Peter Grimmett en ce que nous trouvons une gouvernance « politique » au Québec, mais nous argumentons que la gouvernance en Ontario ne peut pas être considérée comme « professionnelle », mais plutôt comme « corporative » selon la thèse de Terrence James Johnson. Au-delà des différences entre ces deux provinces, nous établissons des tendances historiques de la professionnalisation de l’enseignement dans ces deux cas qui sont semblables avec celles de l’Europe et qui démontrent l’importance du contrôle étatique sur l’évolution de la professionnalisation de l’enseignement, ce qui diffère de l’histoire de la plupart des professions établies analysées par les sociologues. AbstractThis paper presents a historical and sociological comparative analysis of the role of the state in the implementation of professional teacher education in Quebec and Ontario during the 1960s to the year 2000. We agree with Peter Grimmett that we find “political” governance in Quebec, but we argue that governance in Ontario cannot be considered “professional”, but rather “corporate” according to Terrence James Johnson's theoretical approach. Beyond the differences between these two provinces, we establish historical trends in the professionalization of teaching in these two cases, which are similar to those in Europe, and which demonstrate the importance of state control over the evolution of professionalization of teaching, which differs from the history of most established professions that have been analyzed by sociologists.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".