Special report on the separate school provisions of the school law of Upper Canada, and the measures which have been adopted to supply the school sections and municipalities with school text books, apparatus and libraries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2. Objection to the School system generally, that it interferes with the rights and duties of parents, answered 49 3. Objection to the School system on account of the alleged expensiveness and inefficiency of the Common Schools in the City of Toronto, -Normal and Model School system ignored in Toronto, adopted in Hamilton, -Results,-Objection of certain parties that each man should alone pay for the education of his own children,-Noble example of the Hon.J. H. Cameron, also of the late Hon.H. Sherwood, -City of Toronto, or any other city, or town, or village municipality, can establish any kind or system of schools it pleases, or none at all, -Bad management in certain municipalities, no valid objection to the school, any more than to the Municipal, system 49 -52 4. Objection to school tax on the lands of absentees,-Justice of it to the residents of each School Section 52 5. Notice of the labours, statements, and theories of Mr. " Angus Dallas," 52-54 Concluding remarks,-Voluntary Municipal character of our school system,-Comparison of the expense and progress of the School systems in Great Britain, Ireland and Upper Canada, -Statements of SirJohnPakingtonandLordJohnRussell in the British House of Commons, 12th February, 1858,-Encouragement to sustain and extend our Canadian system 54-57 APPENDIX.A. Provisions of the Law relating to Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Upper Canada
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.006 |
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".