Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers’ institutes for public elementary school teachers in Ontario began to be implemented in the middle of the nineteenth century as a result of the efforts of Egerton Ryerson Superintendent of Schools for Canada West as Ontario was then known. They were based on similar practices that Ryerson had observed on an educational tour in 1845 during which he visited the United States, the British Isles and a number of western European countries including Germany. After initial failures, the passage of the landmark School Act of 1871 provided the context for educational state officials to redouble their efforts to have teachers regularly attend teachers’ institute meetings to further their professional development. After a series of revisions to the regulations and the appointment of a director in 1885, incidents of teacher absence began to be documented and reported to central state authorities. This resulted in a variety of disciplinary actions that culminated with the temporary suspension of Luella Dunn’s – a teacher in rural Ontario – teaching certificate. Using the evidence available in the reports of inspectors, teachers’ institute agendas, newspaper accounts and the annual reports of the Minister of Education, the author attempts to show that Luella Dunn and other teachers who ran foul of the regulations were produced as individuals through the effects of power. Through the regulations and procedures that defined their operation, teachers’ institutes became important sites for the elaboration of pedagogy. In this role, the author will explore how teachers’ institutes were a means for instilling what Minister of Education George Ross (1883–1899) termed a “self‐culture” of the teacher.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".