LANGUAGE CHOICE AND EDUCATION RIGHTS IN QUEBEC: BILL 101 PASSES THE SUPREME COURT TEST?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language of instruction has been a controversial issue in Quebec for many decades. During the 1960s and 70s, various attempts were made by provincial governments to solve the problem of accommodating the competing demands and interests of the various linguistic groups, while attempting to protect and promote the position of French. The principle of free choice of English or French-speaking schools had resulted in immigrants, for example, tending overwhelmingly to choose English schools. The Charter of the French Language (Bill 101), enacted in 1977,1 was a major development in Quebec's language policy. It provided inter alia that schooling in public and subsidized private kindergarten, elementary and secondary schools in Quebec would be in French, except in certain circumstances where access to education through English would be permitted. It is widely accepted that this provision had a major impact on immigrants' transfer patterns to French rather than English: by 2000–1, 90.2 per cent of immigrants were attending French schools.2
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".