MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249312495 · doi:10.32316/hse/rhe.v32i1.4733

Tripwires and Whisky Tenors: Student-Faculty Relationships in Alberta’s Normal Schools During the 1930s

2020· article· en· W4249312495 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shawn Brackett

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Studies in Education / Revue d histoire de l éducation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationPerspective (graphical)PedagogyStudent lifePsychologySociologyMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicineLibrary scienceLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the first half of the twentieth century, most prospective teachers in Alberta pursued certification by attending provincial normal school in Calgary, Camrose, or Edmonton. “Normalites” (as students called themselves) formed relationships with instructors that proved significant in their personal and professional lives. Faculty members acted in loco parentis as they guided students transitioning from learners to teachers. Instructors fostered typical notions of gender and the idealized teacher model, and their relationships with students characterized student life. Drawing upon Robert Patterson’s Project Yesteryear questionnaires, yearbooks, and annual reports, this article examines the social worlds of normal schools. Educational historians in Canada have long examined student life and culture, but more work has focused on universities than normal schools. This study suggests the importance of survey accounts and student-produced documents as ways to enrich administrative perspective of histories of student life.

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)0.004
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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0460.023
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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