Brian Noonan, Dianne Hallman, and Murray Scharf (Eds.) A History of Education in Saskatchewan: Selected Readings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the time of Alexander Pope (1688-1744) whose Dunciad alleged that indiscriminate studies "stuffed the head / With all such reading as was never read," editors of collected essays in education have published at some risk.To be sure, editorial dexterity and authorial clout sometimes lent the better specimens of this genre the intellectual allure and contextual fit they deserved.Their less persuasive counterparts, alas, were more frequently written off in academe as exercises in butterfly-catching, lucky dips, or additives to students' lecture notes.Mercifully, no such detractions apply to A History of Education in Saskatchewan.In this last respect, editors and contributors alike resist the urge to ride madly off in all directions.Stemming from a University of Saskatchewan anniversary conference, this volume emerges as a selection winnowed to "three natural themes," notably, building the state; schooling and culture; and teachers and teaching.Authors enjoy a comfortable division of labour.Similarly, an introduction, sectional prefaces, bountiful endnotes, information on contributors, a bibliography, and a workable index unite to assist readers in navigating the main text and familiarizing themselves with associated scholarship.Other such consolidating factors include the currency of educational issues at stake and a marked revisionist thrust throughout.As well, writers conceive of Saskatchewan's educational challenges as resonating both Canadawide and internationally.Within this framework, Murray Scharf 's historical overview deals adroitly with relevant educational legislation, its promulgators, and a disparate rural population intimately acquainted with environmental, economic, ethnic, religious, and linguistic realities.In the same sense, Brian Noonan's thorough account of Saskatchewan
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.024 |
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".