HOW AND WHY SELECTED CIS SCHOOLS WERE FOUNDED: 1960 TO PRESENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis inquired into how and why selected member schools from the Conference of Independent Schools (CIS) were founded. An initial framework for the inquiry was developed from an interpretive review of the literature addressing independent schools in Ontario and the educational policy environment of the province since 1960. This initial appreciation was extended through an analysis of student enrolment patterns in Ontario’s public, separate, and independent school sectors and through structured interviews with individuals highly knowledgeable about the founding of six CIS schools. Five critical junctures in Ontario’s educational policy environment were identified as having had a plausible influence upon the growth and development of Ontario’s independent school sector since 1960. These junctures are the Robarts’ Plan, the Hall- Dennis Report, Bill 30, the Radwanski Report, and the Harris Government reforms. In terms of extending insight into how an independent school is formed, this thesis provides a detailed accounting of the founding of six CIS schools by grouping the specific considerations managed during the establishment of these institutions into three broad categories of development, namely the visionary phase, the practical phase, and the launch phase. The significance of this research is grounded in the libertarian tenets of the school choice movement and the suggested need to better comprehend the potential interrelationships between actors, agencies, and interests in a society that embodies a variety of educational sectors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".