Illustrer le territoire québécois dans les manuels d’histoire au secondaire : étude de cas sur le paysage en tant qu’outil de médiation culturelle et ses rapports avec l’espace, le pouvoir et l’identité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le présent article, nous proposons une réflexion sur l’usage du paysage dans trois manuels d’histoire québécois. Nous l’abordons premièrement en considérant le cadre de référence (ou le contexte de production) de ces documents visuels, de nature artistique, scientifique ou médiatique,relatifs à l’architecture. Nous analysons ces trois types de paysages pour discuter des rapports qu’ils entretiennent avec le réel, notamment concernant un certain effet d’authenticité et d’objectivité. Il s’agit alors de considérer le paysage en tant qu’outil de médiation culturelle. Nous poursuivons la réflexion sur l’usage du paysage par une analyse thématique de lieux associés à la ville de Montréal dans les manuels. Ensuite, nous présentons une grille de lecture des documents iconographiques qui pourrait s’appliquer à tout paysage considéré comme document iconographique pour susciter un questionnement productif sur le plan des informations que l’on peut en tirer. \nIn this paper, we propose a reflection on the use of the landscape in three Quebec history textbooks. We turn first considering the terms of reference (or the context of production) of these visual documents, produced from an artistic, scientific or mediatic point of view. We analyze these three types of landscapes to discuss their relationship with reality, especially regarding some effect of authenticity and objectivity. It is then to consider the landscape as a tool for cultural mediation. We continue the reflection on the use of the landscape by a thematic analysis of places associated with the city of Montreal in textbooks. Thirdly, we present a reading grid of graphic materials that could be applied to any landscape considered as graphic material, in order to question it in terms of information that can be learned.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".