Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1902 elementary school provision in Oxford diocese – England's largest – reflected the national picture: 72 per cent were church schools, with total rolls of 54 per cent of school-age children. The bitterly contested 1902 Education Act apparently protected the future of church schools, but in practice its provisions severely undermined them, particularly in growing areas of the country. By 1929, Oxford's assistant bishop reported the schools’ situation as ‘critical’. This article examines the impact on the church schools of one rural deanery in South Buckinghamshire, between the 1902 and 1944 Education Acts. Several schools found themselves under threat of closure, while rapid population increase and a rising school leaving age more than quadrupled the number of school-age children in the area. Closer working with the local education authority and other denominations was one option to optimize scarce resources and protect the Church of England's influence on religious education in day schools: but many churchmen fought to keep church schools open at all costs. This strategy met with limited success: by 1939 the proportion of children in church schools had decreased to 10 per cent, with potential consequences for how religion was taught to the other 90 per cent of children.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".