MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342450000 · doi:10.1017/s0008423915000797

Understanding the Influence of Faith-Based Organizations on Education Policy in Alberta

2015· article· en· W2342450000 on OpenAlexaffabout
Clark Banack

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaithMarketizationIdeologyPoliticsPolitical sciencePolitical educationBad faithPolitical economyPublic administrationSociologyPositive economicsPublic relationsLawEconomicsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent media accounts suggest certain faith-based interest groups are increasingly pressuring provincial governments across Canada to ensure their views on education policy are acted upon. This paper offers a qualitative assessment of the policy influence possessed by faith-based groups active on the education file in Alberta and the factors responsible for this level of influence. Overall, such influence is not directly attributable to the group's size or resources nor can it be explained by the assumption that Alberta is overrun with religious citizens demanding socially conservative policies. Rather, the explanation is found in a more nuanced appreciation of the self-interested electoral calculations made by the long-governing Progressive Conservative party, on the one hand, as well as well as the party's long-running commitment to “school choice” on the other. This sentiment is intimately related to both the province's populist political culture as well as a broader ideological convergence around the principle of “free choice” in general, and the benefits of marketization in particular.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207