Two teachers' associations and the Ontario College of Teachers: a study of teacher and the state relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the evolution of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA), the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), and their relations with state officials in Ontario, with particular attention paid to the establishment of the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT). A socio-historical conceptual framework is applied to suggest that historical and contemporary relations between the state in Ontario and the two teachers' unions can be seen as a series of crises and settlements. The findings of this study show that, for the most part, OECTA's and OSSTF's relations with the state in Ontario have existed in periods of relaxed settlement. The thesis traces a wealth of discussions and proposals regarding a self-regulating profession for teachers that began over a century and culminated in 1996 with the Ontario College of Teachers Act. When the Ontario College of Teachers was established, relations between the teachers' unions and the province of Ontario were unsettled, however, with the introduction of the Education Quality Improvement Act, these relations entered a crisis phase. The significance of this thesis is to demonstrate the usefulness of the socio-historical approach to the understanding of historical and contemporary relations of OSSTF and OECTA to the state in Ontario. Further investigation of potential areas for scholarship may increase the depth and scope of knowledge of relations between state and teachers' associations in Ontario.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".