MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022956661 · doi:10.7202/029663ar

La CECM et la démocratisation du financement scolaire à Montréal (1963-1973)1

2009· article· fr· W2022956661 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean-Philippe Croteau

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d histoire de l Amérique française · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Hearst
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au début des années 1960, les dirigeants de la Commission des écoles catholiques de Montréal (CECM) dénoncent le faible développement de leur secteur secondaire qui accuse un important retard sur celui de la Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal (PSBGM). Le mode de répartition inéquitable de la taxe scolaire est perçu comme l’une des principales causes de ce retard qui fait obstacle à la scolarisation des francophones. À l’époque, le montant de la taxe scolaire, prélevée par cotisation sur les propriétés foncières, est réparti entre les écoles publiques d’après la croyance religieuse des propriétaires. En raison du niveau de richesse plus élevé des protestants, la PSBGM est favorisée par ce mode de financement. Cette étude vise à reconstituer les différentes étapes de la campagne de pression de la CECM pour obtenir l’abolition de ce mode de financement scolaire. Elle tend à montrer le caractère indissociable que prennent la question de la démocratisation de l’enseignement secondaire public et celle de la redistribution équitable des ressources financières des commissions scolaires montréalaises.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d histoire de l Amérique françaiseSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207