The Impact of Regulation 17 on the Study of District Schools: Some Methodological Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three sets of documents which might be used to study District schools in the early twentiethcentury are examined: Schools and Teachers, the Inspection Summary Registers, and The Reportof the Committee Appointed to Enquire into the Condition of the Schools Attended by French-Speaking Pupils (Merchant Report). Using data created from these for a sample area in theNipissing District, some of the methodological difficulties with using each of these sources areshown, particularly the gap in information in Schools and Teachers between 1914 and 1926.That the boundaries between public and separate schools were permeable at this time and thatboth must be studied to view the impact of Regulation 17 on District schools is emphasized.RésuméPour mener notre étude sur les écoles de district au vingtième siècle, nous utilisons trois sériesde documents : la revue Schools and Teachers, les résumés des rapports annuels des inspecteursd’écoles et The Report of the Committee Appointed to Enquire into the Condition of the SchoolsAttended by French-Speaking Pupils (le rapport Merchant). À partir des données tirées de cestrois sources pour une région témoin du district de Nipissing, nous démontrons certainesdifficultés méthodologiques reliées à leur utilisation et plus particulièrement à la pauvreté del’information de la revue Schools and Teachers entre 1914 et 1926. Nous insistons sur le faitque durant cette période la frontière entre les écoles publiques et les écoles séparées était perméableet pour cette raison, il faut étudier les deux types d’écoles pour comprendre les effets duRèglement 17 sur les écoles de District.
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 | 0.334 | 0.395 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".