MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366678314 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.017.001

Les coûts de la non-évaluation des politiques de l’éducation au Québec

2002· article· en· W4366678314 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Pierre W. Bélanger, Lynda Gosselin, Michel Umbriaco

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologySociologyInterpretation (philosophy)Valuation (finance)Positive economicsWelfare economicsRelevance (law)EpistemologyPolitical scienceEconomicsPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Based on concrete examples, the authors demonstrate the gap between research and educational policy in Québec. Educational choices are too often based on ideological fads, even though intellectual, economic and ethical reasons point to the need for rigorous evidence-based strategies, specifically for prior testing and systematic evaluations during and after policy implementation. This article focuses on the wealth and relevance of research needed for developing sound educational policy — policy that avoids the pitfalls of demagogy and common sense and does not leave the achievement of results and their interpretation to chance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.635
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.041 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207