MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235700984 · doi:10.32316/hse/rhe.v32i1.4671

Sputnik’s Children: History of the Major Work Program in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Schools, 1954–1972

2020· article· en· W4235700984 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Reesa Sorin

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Studies in Education / Revue d histoire de l éducation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricContext (archaeology)Political sciencePoliticsWork (physics)World War IIPublic administrationSociologyLawHistoryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Set in the context of the Cold War, the space race, and the 1957 Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite, interest in gifted education, which had waned in the years leading up to the Second World War, was once again reignited in Canadian education. North America looked to its human capital, particularly in the areas of mathematics, science, and engineering to keep up with the Soviets. Departments of education in Canada and the United States prioritized the identification and nurturing of the “best and brightest” students for the sake of the nation. The Major Work program in Winnipeg, which began in 1954 and ended rather abruptly in 1972, seventeen years before the end of the Cold War, was one of many gifted programs introduced in Canada and the United States in an attempt to address the supposed innovation gap with the Soviet Union. This article looks at the rise of Winnipeg’s Major Work program in the 1950s, when society-centred rhetoric replaced earlier child-centred rhetoric and then itself was overridden by the 1970s social, economic, and political reforms, which again tended towards child-centred, integrated education.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0220.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical Studies in Education / Revue d histoire de l éducationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207