MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2941597618 · doi:10.4000/books.pum.13372

9. Le financement de l'éducation et le rôle de l’État

2000· book-chapter· fr· W2941597618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert G. Picard

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks · 2000
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policies and Family
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historiquement au Québec, le coût de l’éducation a été assumé principalement par les parents (taxes foncières perçues par les commissions scolaires, droits de scolarité), par les communautés religieuses et l’Église catholique, responsables des collèges classiques et des universités, et par des dons philanthropiques, l’État jouant un rôle de suppléance par des subventions discrétionnaires aux établissements privés ou aux commissions scolaires confrontées à des difficultés financières récurrentes. Les besoins croissants de l’éducation tendent à conférer un rôle financier plus important à l’État. Pour le jésuite Robert Picard (1905-1987), psychologue de formation, professeur de psychologie et de pédagogie, notamment à l’École normale supérieure (1943-1949) et à l’Université de Montréal (1948-1959), puis directeur des études dans divers établissements de la Compagnie de Jésus, l’État ne doit pas prendre prétexte de l’accroissement de son engagement financier pour s’approprier le contrôle de l’éducation ; ce serait aller contre l’ordre naturel des choses, qui confère aux parents et à l’Église le droit essentiel de régir l’éducation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks→Same topicSocial Policies and Family→French-language works237,207→