MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541520767 · doi:10.1177/117718011401000402

Seeking Reform of Indigenous Education in Canada: Democratic progress or democratic colonialism?

2014· article· en· W1541520767 on OpenAlexaffabout
Terry Wotherspoon

Bibliographic record

VenueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousDemocracyLegislationGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Political scienceColonialismPublic administrationEconomic growthIndigenous rightsSociologyPolitical economyPoliticsLawEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After several decades of calls for action, overall levels of educational participation and attainment among indigenous people remain much lower than those for Canadians as a whole. Beginning with an overview of recent educational trends, this paper seeks to understand why educational visions expressed by indigenous people several decades ago remain unfulfilled. Focusing on recent federal government legislation for First Nations education, the analysis highlights how government policies and public discourses frequently exclude and undermine indigenous people and their rights despite constitutional recognition of indigenous status within a liberal democratic context. These processes of “democratic colonization”, as the emergence of alternative movements such as Idle No More has made evident, reveal the continuing impact of colonization on indigenous people and their lands and communities, reinforced through many of the kinds of government policies, practices and public opinions around which the movement initially coalesced. This paper explores the various factors that facilitate and impede educational reform within this social context.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous PeoplesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207