Bibliographic record
Abstract
elected to office in the upcoming provincial election, his party would consider funding faith-based schools.1 This pronouncement became one of the defining issues of this campaign because it reopened an emotionally and politically charged issue in Ontario dating back to the 1840s, when faith based-schooling was referred to as the ‘school question’. In particular, this school question led to the decision to guarantee public funding to the Roman Catholic (separate) school system as part of the British North America Act (1867). According to Ronald Manzer, “[b]oth before and after Confederation, the ‘school question ’ was consistently one of the most explosive and deeply divisive issues of Canadian politics… ” (2003 p. 40). First, this paper will offer an examination of the historical literature related to the legal and political decisions surrounding funding faith-based schools in Ontario. Second, it will explore how the Ontario Conservative Party's promise of funding faith-based education unfolded during the 2007 election campaign. Third, the paper will offer a few options to consider in relation to the question of funding faith-based schools in Ontario. Establishment of the Common School
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.466 | 0.247 |
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".