From biculturalism to culture clash: French language and Manitoba public education to 1916
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Manitoba School Question is representative of a larger problem of possible tyranny by the majority. Mob rule is often less recognized when seemingly legitimized by legislative action. This long term event shows the danger resulting from assumptions that constitutional provisions provide adequate protection for a minority. When legislation is enacted which removes Constitutional rights, and there is no violent opposition, are assumed to be accepted by all. Once opposition develops decades later, it comes as an apparent surprise, even to individuals in prominent political positions.\nLanguage is clearly a major issue in the Manitoba School Question but all elements of culture including religion and ethnicity play important roles in the controversy. While other North American communities like Prairie du Chien and St. Louis have retained little to mark a distinctive French culture, aside from street names, in Manitoba, the language and other cultural elements continue in theater, literature, and education. Even as the minority language continues, there is virtually no one who claims French as their native language who is not fluent in English. As other locations in North America debate the question and propriety of imposing an official language, much could be learned from the experience of Manitoba.\nThe primary sources utilized in this study were mainly documents generated by the Manitoba and Canadian governments and by the Manitoba Department of Education. Much information was also gleaned from the correspondence of Catholic missionaries and Archbishop Taché as well as from leadership in the Protestant school systems. Few of most important participants in this pageant lived to witness the Constitutional crisis resulting from the quick and easy legislative responses to popular sentiments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".