MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021498848

A School Divided: A Historicist Legal Analysis of Good Spirit School Division No 204 v Christ Teacher Roman Catholic Separate School Division No 212

2019· article· en· W3021498848 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward R. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivision (mathematics)HistoricismLawPhilosophySociologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceMathematicsArithmetic
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the cusp of a judgment by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, this article examines the 2017 Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench decision in Good Spirit School Division No 204 v Christ the Teacher Roman Catholic Separate School Division No 212. In this case, the SKQB ruled that non-Catholic students attending a publicly funded Catholic school were not entitled to per-student funding grants administered by the provincial government. This article reviews the case using a historicist lens informed by the philosophy of Edmund Burke, which the author suggests is appropriate in the Canadian constitutional context. Through this constitutional lens, the author examines the constitutional history of separate school funding in Saskatchewan and other Canadian jurisdictions. The author suggests that this history reveals the premium on educational choice that has informed educational policy in Canada. With this history in mind, the article turns to the SKQB judgment. It suggests that the application of several of the key interpretive tools was flawed in light of this history, the development of Charter jurisprudence, and a richer understanding of “state neutrality” in the Canadian context.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0270.033
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicLegal Issues in EducationFrench-language works237,207