Le tournant culturel du discours officiel québécois sous l’éclairage de la sociologie de la justification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis 1992, le gouvernement du Québec développe des politiques et des programmes afin de renforcer l’éducation culturelle des élèves. Comment le discours officiel justifie‐t‐il ce tournant culturel? Comment définit‐il la culture et l’éducation dans le cadre de ce dernier? Pour répondre à ces questions, nous avons eu recours au cadre théorique de la sociologie de la justification et avons examiné le discours officiel à l’aide d’une analyse de contenu. Nos résultats suggèrent que le discours officiel se base sur un composite constitué de conceptions plurielles de la culture et de l’éducation pour justifier le tournant culturel. Mots‐clés: éducation culturelle, sociologie de la justification, réforme québécoise des programmes de formation, analyse de contenu, politiques éducatives et culturelles Since 1992, the Quebec’s provincial government has been implementing policies and programs designed to improve students’ cultural education. How does the official discourse justify this cultural change? How does it define culture and education in this context? To answer these questions, we relied on a theoretical framework from the sociology of justification and carried out a content analysis of Quebec’s official discourse. Our results suggest that the official justifications for the cultural change in direction are based on a composite of various notions of culture and education. Key words: cultural education, sociology of justification, Quebec curricular reform, content analysis, cultural and educational policies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".