MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2253403037 · doi:10.82308/18106

Sites of learning: the architecture of educational reform in Toronto, 1847-1917

2009· article· en· W2253403037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kai Wood Mah

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsideSociologyAgency (philosophy)Political sciencePedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compulsory education represents one facet of a larger social transformation of working-class children and families in the late nineteenth century. Competing ideas of schooling children and their well-being informed the cultural ferment of these years, as educationists, reformers, specialists, and politicians debated the idea of childhood. By 1917, the Toronto Public School Board’s multiple locations of reform consisted of ninety-nine sites in the city, ranging from the ubiquitous school buildings to more specialized spaces such as industrial and open-air schools. From its formation in 1847 until 1917 when the Department of Health took over children’s public health, the Toronto Public School Board aside from providing free education also acted as an agency of social, juvenile penal, and health reform of children. This dissertation analyzes these years of reform by exploring various architectural sites designed purposefully to implement modern reforms from 1847 to 1917. In examining the Ontario Educational Exhibit of 1876; the Toronto Normal School and Model Schools; the Toronto public school buildings; the Victoria Industrial School for Boys in Mimico; the open-air schools; playgrounds and other material culture of education, I show the complex links education had to industrial capitalism, popular education, school design, juvenile penal reform, architectural practice, and medicine. Organized in a loose chronological order, the six chapters illuminate the ways in which architecture and spatial dimensions informed the process of schooling children, legislating children and childhoods, defining professionalism, and other forces in the educational landscapes that shaped both the experience of the makers and users in these formative years.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0220.032
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→