MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488920461 · doi:10.22230/ijepl.2012v7n3a353

Juggling Educational Ends: Non-Indigenous Yukon Principals and the Policy Challenges That They Face

2012· article· en· W1488920461 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Simon Blakesley

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education Policy and Leadership · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisIndigenousCurriculumFace (sociological concept)UnderpinningSociologyPower (physics)EthnographyCompetition (biology)ThrivingPolitical scienceBalance (ability)Public relationsPedagogyPsychologySocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on a 2008 study of non-indigenous principals working in Indigenous Yukon contexts. It examines the policy contexts in which Yukon principals are embedded, giving specific attention to how they address the tensions that exist as a result of operating at the intersections of micro, meso, and macro policy levels. The application of critical ethnography generates the opportunity to reveal and examine the tensions, distinctions, and contradictions underpinning their praxis, exposing the multifaceted and conflictual power structures in which they are embedded. The principals identify fragmented curricular policy; the competition between instructional time, mandated external curricula, and locally developed curricula; and field trip and hiring policies as being problematic. The principals also describe how they cope with the challenges and tensions that arise as a result of being responsible and accountable to balance competing educational ends to the satisfaction of multiple external levels of control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Education Policy and LeadershipSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207