Perceptions of Catholic administrators and trustees regarding Bill 30's impact on the mission of separate schools / by Mary Lillian Bergamo.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the perceptions of Catholic Administrators \nand Trustees about Bill 30's impact on the ability of Separate School \nBoards in Ontario to retain their distinctive mission. The conceptual \nlens for this study was taken from the Completion Office - Separate \nSchools' document, Catholic Education and Separate School Boards in \nOntario (1988), which outlines the basic model for the provision of \nCatholic education. This model is represented by three basic means \nnamely; providing qualified staff, developing Christian community, and \nproviding an academic curriculum that integrates faith and life. By \ninvestigating three dissimilar separate school boards, this study was \nable to provide significant data on the impact that Bill 30 is having \non each of these basic providers of Catholic education, and subsequently, \nthe distinctive mission of separate schools. \nThis study employed qualitative research methodology. The process \nof data collection relied on semi-structured, open-ended interviews \nwith twenty-four subjects. Additionally, a variety of documentation \nsuch as policies, goals and objectives, mission statements, and brochures \nwere collected and analyzed. \nThe findings demonstrate that Bill 30 has transformed the nature \nof the separate school system of Ontario, and that it is challenging \nthis system's raison d'etre. However, as a result, separate schools \nhave experienced a consciousness of mission and ministry that is intent on strengthening and confirming the distinctive character of \ntheir schools. Relative to mission building, implications for theory, \npractice, and research are suggested.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".