Faith, Rights, and Choice: The Politics of Religious Schools in Canada. <i>By James Farney and Clark Banack</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McCollum v. Board of Education gave birth to the notion that the First Amendment somehow requires public elementary and secondary schools to be hermetically sealed off from any religious influences or even acknowledgments. In recent years, the Supreme Court has been chipping away at the wall of separation, but true believers still maintain constitutional democracy demands keeping that wall high, closed, and intact. Debates over whether Oklahoma could create a religiously owned charter school are just the latest instantiation of that worldview. Against that perspective, Canada’s experience with public support for religious schools is instructive, particularly since the country is generally not accused of “democratic backsliding.” Canadian policy on public support of religious schools has varied by province, taking distinctive forms at different historical moments, but it was never assumed that the interplay of religious schools and public support was unquestionably constitutional mauvaise foi. James Farney of the University of Regina and Clark Banack of the University of Alberta have traced the historical development of provincial policies regarding public support of religious schools from before Confederation, concluding that Canada has always been characterized by a pluralism of approaches to the issue. The book’s title captures the degree to which the authors try to apprehend a national vision: the motives of those who approve of public support for religious schools have gradually shifted from matters of outright religious faith to questions of rights to exercise that faith in the public square. Furthermore, issues have arisen over parental choice and about the kind of education a child should be able to receive, without the religious option being financially disadvantaged.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".