Young People Have a Lot to Say ... with Trust, Time, and Tools: The Voices of Inuit Youth in Nunavik.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young people’s voices are frequently overlooked in discussions about education development and policy. This article draws on an ongoing participatory action research project (2011–2014) in Nunavik on student resilience and school perseverance. It examines ethical issues that have arisen during the research process, and highlights the strengths and limitations of tools and technology used to engage students and make their voices heard. Resume Les voix des jeunes sont souvent negligees dans les debats sur le developpement et les politiques de l’education. Cet article s’inspire d’une recherche-action participative, planifiee sur trois ans (2011-2014) sur la resilience et la perseverance scolaire des eleves Inuit au Nunavik. Ce document examine plus specifiquement les considerations ethiques d’un travail de recherche avec les jeunes Inuit. Il explique egalement les forces et les limites des outils qui ont ete developpes, et de la technologie qui a ete utilisee pour faire participer les jeunes et faire entendre leur voix.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".