Le débat sur la gestion scolaire et sa dimension religieuse en Ontario français : une communauté divisée (1980-1998)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article fait l’étude du débat sur les enjeux religieux de la gestion scolaire au sein du milieu associatif franco-ontarien. Ce débat montre la persistance, du moins dans certains milieux, du rôle structurant du référent religieux dans l’institutionnalisation de la francophonie ontarienne après le désengagement public de l’Église et les bouleversements idéologiques de la Révolution tranquille. Ce phénomène a été largement négligé par l’historiographie. Dans les années 1980, l’espace public de la collectivité franco-ontarienne est de plus en plus caractérisé par un pluralisme idéologique, culturel et religieux qui ne conduit pas, néanmoins, à évacuer le catholicisme de la conscience identitaire d’une partie substantielle de la population francophone de la province. Dans ses revendications pour obtenir le contrôle de ses institutions scolaires, le réseau associatif réclame ainsi un double réseau de conseils scolaires de langue française, catholiques et publics, à la grandeur de la province, qu’il obtient finalement en 1998.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | high |
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".