Same Arguments, Different Outcomes: Struggles Over Private School Funding in Alberta and Ontario, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I compare arguments mobilized for and against a policy to publicly fund private schools, including religious private schools, in Alberta and Ontario, Canada, and highlight how the arguments reflect each province’s historical, ideological, and social contexts. Grounded in Maarten Hajer’s argumentative discourse theory and based on findings from argumentative discourse analyses of 275 media articles, submissions to nine parliamentary committee meetings, and 14 interviews, I show how actors with disparate interests and values formed discourse coalitions as they pursued their policy preference by mobilizing one of two storylines: (1) public funds are for public schools or (2) private schools deserve public funds. The findings demonstrate that policy supporters and opponents mobilized the same arguments in both provinces between 1990 and 2020 with opposing outcomes. I conclude by highlighting aspects of the provinces’ historical, social, and discursive contexts that help explain these different outcomes and consider the effects of Alberta’s policy to fund private schools with public funds on enrollment and equity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it