The Salaries of Teachers in English Canada, 1900-1940: A Reappraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any student of Canadian education during the first half of the twentieth century has encountered the belief, common among those engaged in the educational enterprise and sometimes shared by others, that teachers were badly paid for their work. Though not a universal assessment, a similar view has also dominated the historiography. This interpretation, we think, is overdue for revision. In this article we address two central questions. One focuses more narrowly on teachers' salaries per se: how much, on average, did teachers earn, and how did this change over time? The other asks, just how good or bad were their salaries compared to those of other people in the Canadian workforce? We tackle these questions on a Canada-wide basis, excluding only the province of Quebec, and over an extended period, covering the first four decades of the century. -- Parmi les chercheurs et les étudiants intéressés par l’histoire de l’éducation canadienne pour la première moitié du vingtième siècle, un lieu commun persiste, à savoir, que les enseignants étaient très mal payés pour leur travail. Bien que cette assertion ne soit pas partagée par tous, ce point de vue domine dans l’historiographie de cette période. Nous croyons qu’il est temps de repenser cette interprétation. Dans cet article, nous nous intéressons à deux questions fondamentales. La première porte spécifiquement sur la rémunération des enseignants: combien gagnaient-ils en moyenne et comment leurs salaires ont-ils évolué dans le temps? La deuxième compare les salaires des enseignants à ceux versés aux autres travailleurs canadiens: étaient-ils pires ou meilleurs? Notre étude s’intéresse aux enseignants canadiens, à l’exception de ceux du Québec, et couvre les quatre premières décennies du vingtième siècle.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".