MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006281742 · doi:10.7202/1066447ar

Pour une pensée politique à l’école : problématique et fondements théoriques

2019· article· fr· W3006281742 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Olivier Lemieux, Denis Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueÉducation et francophonie · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En un supposé temps de déclin de la participation électorale, plusieurs s’interrogent sur les moyens d’action capables de freiner l’aliénation politique des jeunes générations et la montée du cynisme. Dans ce contexte, l’école apparaît comme un champ d’action particulièrement névralgique. Si l’école québécoise n’offre pas spécifiquement une éducation politique, nous estimons cependant que certaines connaissances, compétences disciplinaires, compétences transversales et certains domaines généraux de formation sont susceptibles de participer à la formation d’une pensée politique. Mais qu’entendons-nous exactement par « pensée politique »? L’objet du présent article vise à proposer une construction de ce concept, notamment en le situant et en le distinguant d’autres concepts centraux de l’enseignement des sciences humaines. Ainsi, nous estimons que le présent article permettra de poser une première pierre théorique pour un plus vaste projet de recherche portant sur la « compétence politique » des citoyens, laquelle ajoute à la pensée politique la propension à s’intéresser à la vie publique et à y participer.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.040
Scholarly communication0.0150.021
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉducation et francophonieSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207