MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392522914 · doi:10.1353/cat.2024.a921694

The Late Nineteenth-Century North American Catholic Schools Question: Tangled Disputes over Catholic Public Education in Manitoba and Minnesota

2024· article· en· W4392522914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brendan A Shanahan

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œCatholic historical review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryPublic educationLawPolitical sciencePublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Debates over the role of the state in Catholic education rocked both the United States and Canada during the early-to-mid 1890s. Arguably the two most famous of these disputes—the “Manitoba Schools Question” (1890–1897) and the “Faribault Plan” (1890–1893) in Minnesota—unfolded alongside one another in neighboring polities. Both centered on whether Catholic schools could receive taxpayer funding and whether they should be recognized as public institutions. This article explores cross-border press coverage of them to demonstrate their deep top-down and bottom-up ties. It argues they represent two sides of a broader, intertwined late nineteenth-century North American Catholic Schools Question.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œCatholic historical reviewSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207