Le financement des écoles publiques à Montréal et à Toronto (1841-1997) : Un baromètre pour mesurer les rapports entre la majorité et la minorité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Cette étude propose d’examiner les modes de financement scolaire à Montréal et à Toronto, entre 1841 et 1997, sous l’angle sociopolitique d’un baromètre pour mesurer les rapports sociaux entre la majorité et la minorité. Il ressort de nos recherches que l’État provincial ontarien accorde, avant les années 1960, la primauté aux écoles publiques qui disposent à la fois de la reconnaissance politique et de l’accès aux ressources financières, tandis que les écoles séparées sont soumises à des contraintes légales et financières qui les confinent à un espace social dévolu à la minorité. À l’opposé, le gouvernement québécois reconnaît l’égalité et l’autonomie des acteurs catholiques et protestants, tant sur les plans administratif, pédagogique que financier. Ainsi, il apparaît que la scène scolaire constitue un espace névralgique de discussions, de négociations et même d’affrontements entre les différents groupes religieux et culturels pour faire valoir leurs conceptions éducatives et obtenir l’accès aux ressources financières. ABSTRACT This study proposes to examine the ways in which schools were financed, both in Montreal and Toronto, between 1841 and 1997, from the perspective of a socio-political barometer measuring the social relationships between majority and minority. It is clear from our research that prior to the 1960s the Ontario provincial government gave priority to public schools, providing both political recognition and access to financial resources, while separate schools were subjected to financial and legal constraints and confined to the social space vested to the minority. In contrast, the Quebec government recognized the equality and autonomy of actors both Catholics and Protestants on administrative, educational, and financial levels. Thus, the educational scene appears to be a space that is sensitive to discussions, negotiations, and even clashes between different religious and cultural groups, where each can promote their conceptions of education and gain access to financial resources.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".