MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121401037 · doi:10.7202/1074375ar

Public School Taxes and the Remaking of Suburban Space and History: Etobicoke, 1945–1954

2021· article· en· W3121401037 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jason A. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuburbanizationModernization theoryMiddle classEconomic growthRentingSpace (punctuation)Political scienceSociologyPublic administrationGeographyMetropolitan areaEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines public school taxes, housing, and changing suburban space in Etobicoke Township (suburban Toronto) between 1945 and 1954. Bridging educational and urban and suburban history, and incorporating recent insights from tax history, it examines the role that school taxes played in transforming Etobicoke from a rural and income-mixed pre-war suburb into a more middle-class, homogenous post-war one. School trustees taxed the new, middle-class housing being constructed in the suburb to underwrite educational expenditures that expanded and modernized the Etobicoke public school system. At the same time, tax and other public policy excluded lower-value rental housing and small dwellings, and also excluded their residents, who did not contribute enough in property taxes to support the emerging suburban school system. School taxes marked inclusion and exclusion in changing Etobicoke. As suburban space changed, established working-class residents and farmers tried to defend their interests as school taxpayers. Farmers could not defend their interests in the same way, and many sold their properties to sub-dividers for housing, erasing farms and one-room schools from the suburban landscape. The history of suburbanization and the history of educational expansion and modernization were causatively dependent on one another. Historians of education and urban and suburban historians benefit from drawing on each other’s aligned historiographies, and from looking at taxes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207