"We’re writing our own stories": An Examination of Youth Writing in Our Story: The Canadian Aboriginal Writing Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Historica-Dominion Institute’s Our Story: The Canadian Aboriginal Writing Challenge is a contest that provides an online forum for young Indigenous writers. Winning stories by Julie-Dean Chartrand, Trevor Jang, and Maynan Robinson, all under the age of eighteen, model the form of integration that Kanien’kehaka scholar Taiaiake Alfred envisions, with youth first becoming embedded in their traditions and cultures, and then using their knowledges as a foundation for leadership and social engagement. The authors’ resistance to colonialism is especially poignant given that their writing appears within the Western framework of the Historica-Dominion Institute, an organization that privileges Canadian citizenship over tribal identities and celebrates a singular history of the Canadian nation. In addition to creating an intergenerational dialogue and sharing crucial experiences with the Canadian public, these stories suggest that it is time to engage with young people, a frequently overlooked literary community.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.073 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".