MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301256984 · doi:10.46692/9781447320081.004

Policy and biopolitics: the event of race-based statistics in Toronto

2017· other· en· W4301256984 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopowerRace (biology)Event (particle physics)StatisticsGeographyGenealogyDemographySociologyHistoryMathematicsPolitical scienceGender studiesLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I think … [the establishment of a Black-focused school] took so long because we’re all very comfortable, and we’ve become very complacent in how we treat students in our schools, and more specifically, how we treat students of colour within our schools. It has been suggested time and time and time again, and we will have a shooting in a school, we will have a death in a school, and somebody else will recommend … [a Black-focused school], and everybody says, ‘yeah, great idea! We really should deal with this because students’, Black students’ self-esteem is down a hole and we need to do something about it’. And we talk and we nod and we smile, and then we forget about it. (Weiss, 2010: film time 11.00–11.56) There was momentum to introduce Black-focused schooling in Toronto in the early 1990s, assisted by the election of the social democratic New Democratic Party at the time. In 1991, a Black Secretariat was formed by the provincial government, and ideas about Black-focused schooling were proposed in 1992 by a multilevel Ontario government working group, the Four-level Government/African Canadian Community Working Group. As part of recommendations in their report Towards a new beginning , the working group proposed a targeted programme called ‘Focussed School’ to be implemented in schools that had high percentages of Black/African Canadian students in each of the cities making up Greater Toronto (Ontario Government/African Canadian Community Working Group, 1992). The arguments for Black-focused schools in Toronto emphasised the need for a Black-oriented curriculum as an intervention into ongoing educational and social disadvantage for Black students. This meant arguing for curriculum change in existing public schools in addition to proposing separate ‘Black-focused’ schools (Dei, 1995; James, 2011). However, by the mid-1990s and early 2000s the idea of Black-focused schooling had entered a hiatus, with a decline in focus on racial issues brought about by a combination of a change in provincial government in 1995, with a Conservative government in power until 2003, and the dismantling of the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat by the incoming government, and the reorganisation of the Greater Toronto School District.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207