MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596161216

Regulating the Personal Lives of ‘Lady’ Teachers

2016· article· en· W2596161216 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine Ensslen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Teaching and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyAutonomyAgency (philosophy)DiscretionSociologyGender studiesRural areaDisciplinePolitical scienceEconomic growthSocial scienceLawEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until the 1950s, many teachers in Saskatchewan still taught in one-room schools located within farming communities and, in these rural settings, were under close scrutiny by farm men, farm women and their children. While focusing on the gendered constraints at play, this paper explores how women teachers lived with, negotiated and challenged these prescribed expectations. I examine the regulation of rural women teachers by local farm families in their capacities as parents of school children, school trustees and landlords in the first half of the 20th century. I argue that the expectation to be a quiet and conforming female by community members, as enforced by the total discretion over firing and rehiring, made it difficult for rural women teachers to assert autonomy and agency. For those women who attempted to deviate from the standards of this time, the visibility of their activities constrained their latitude of departure and left them vulnerable to disciplinary measures. First hand accounts from 200 women, who taught in rural Saskatchewan in the first half of the 20th century, provide the basis for this analysis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.036
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Teaching and LearningSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207