L’analyse de contenu, une voie d’or pour l’analyse des politiques éducatives? : étude de cas du programme d’Histoire et éducation à la citoyenneté et de sa controverse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes an analysis of the influence the media has in the policy-making cycle based on a case study of the 2006 controversy regarding the Quebec High School History and Citizenship Education program. We highlight the importance of the media in the emergence of the debate within the public sphere, the feeding and amplification of the latter, and its direct impact on the decision to review the program by the Government of Quebec. To do so, we proceed to a conceptualization of the controversy, which is decomposed into five big stakes being each in the center of a confrontation between two dimensions. It is from this conceptualization that we establish our railing of analysis, and then proceed to a content analysis of the preliminary version of the program, its revised second version, and approximately 30 newspaper articles published between the beginning of the controversy and the presentation of the second version. Finally, this analysis allows us to observe that in the quantitative view, the controversy did not have much effect, while in the qualitative view, we can observe some subtle, but important changes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".