MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404612192 · doi:10.1590/1984-0411.84470-t

Between curriculum requirements and teaching practices: the humanities programme and primary education in Quebec

2024· article· en· W4404612192 on OpenAlexaffabout
Guilherme Moerbeck, Anderson Araújo‐Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueEducar em Revista · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumHistorical thinkingPedagogySubject (documents)School teachersPrimary educationSociologyMathematics educationHumanitiesPsychologyLibrary scienceArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The debates regarding the conception of the subject of history in the Programme de Formation de l’École Québécoise (PFEQ) for primary education (primaire) began long before its publication in 2001 (Québec, 2006). Now after 20 years, what can be said about the relationship between the conceptions of history and historical thinking manifested in the PFEQ and those expressed by primary school teachers? This question encourages our analysis, offering a comparative evaluation based on different types of sources. Using data from semi-structured interviews conducted with thirteen primary school teachers, associated to a planned and implemented teaching-learning activity, this article endeavours to discern how historical thinking is mobilized by teachers in their classes and, to what extent, this is compatible or contrasting with the conceptions of history observed in the PFEQ.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducar em RevistaSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207