From “La Plume de Ma Tante” to “Parlez-Vous Français?” The Making of French Language Policy in British Columbia, 1945-1982
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following historical discussion chronicles the story of this success from 1945, when language instruction was first modernized, to passage of the Constitution Act in 1982 that enshrined minority language educational rights (4) .This discussion illustrates how a province that had not quite relinquished its old aspiration to be an Empire, (Ormsby, 1958, p. 494) in fact a province “more English than the English” (Reksten, 1986) in many of its social affectations, came to embrace educational bilingualism in its public schools. Using government records, published reports, personal papers, as well as various secondary sources, this analysis will examine how disparate social, educational, and political forces coalesced to convince provincial authorities?never known for their ultramontanist sentiments?to advocate French language study in symbolic support for a federalist view of Canada then deemed to be at risk. Beyond its value as an educational narrative, the reconstruction of French language policy in British Columbia should be of particular interest to educational administrators and policymakers because it illustrates how governments actually develop social and educational policies, how social environments act on institutions, and how the agenda for public education is sometimes transformed in places far from schools and even farther from the offices of those who govern and administer them.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".