MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091294705 · doi:10.3138/chr.1463

Linguistic Ideology and State Power: German and English Education in Ontario, 1880–1912

2013· article· en· W2091294705 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Benjamin Bryce

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Education Studies Worldwide
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanBureaucracyIdeologyContext (archaeology)CurriculumPolitical scienceState (computer science)German studiesPower (physics)SociologyLinguisticsPedagogyHistoryLawPoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article analyzes the relationship between German and English in Ontario's educational system between 1880 and 1912. It examines textbooks, curriculum, and the linguistic ideology of the Education Department. It charts the transition of German from one of three languages of instruction alongside English and French to an elective subject. By connecting German to other language debates in the period, this study expands our view of English–French relations in Ontario. The analysis of several languages also contributes new perspectives on bilingual education in North America. In addition, the focus on linguistic and cultural policies reassesses the layers of state power and the rising authority of the provincial education bureaucracy. Finally, by situating the educational experience of German-speaking children and the goals of German-speaking parents within the broader context of projects of standardization in the late nineteenth century, the author challenges the assumption about the singular importance of the First World War on German language and culture in Ontario and more broadly in Canada and the United States.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Education Studies WorldwideFrench-language works237,207