La liberté d’expression des enseignants en classe : quatre principes directeurs et leurs fondements juridiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quelles sont les limites raisonnables encadrant l’enseignement de sujets controversés ? L’article suivant vise la réponse à cette question et propose, pour ce faire, de dégager certains principes juridiquement fondés qui guideront la pratique professionnelle du corps enseignant. L’analyse de la jurisprudence pertinente du Canada et des États-Unis, ainsi que de documents légaux secondaires nous a permis de relever les éléments récurrents sur lesquels se fondent les juges pour évaluer si la liberté d’expression pédagogique a été exercée de façon raisonnable et responsable. Notre analyse dégage quatre principes délimitant l’exercice de la liberté d’expression en enseignement : l’alignement avec le programme, l’impartialité, le non-usage de propos possiblement incendiaires et la pertinence du contenu en fonction de l’âge.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".