MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1657309899 · doi:10.24908/jcri.v2i1.4325

Creating Inclusive Classrooms Using Postcolonial and Culturally Relevant Literacy

2012· article· en· W1657309899 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gurjit Sandhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Race Inquiry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumInclusion (mineral)EmbarrassmentShameIdentity (music)LiteracyPedagogyGender studiesEthnic groupNoveltySociologyReading (process)PsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceAestheticsAnthropologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides an interesting look at how a group of South Asian Canadian young women take up issues of identity, identities, and identification as they interact with texts by racialized Canadian authors. When texts written by Canadian authors who also define themselves as belonging to ethnic minority groups (such as Dionne Brand, Wayson Choy, Joy Kogawa, Rohinton Mistry, and Shyam Selvadurai) are seen by Canadian high school students as novelty items, boring reads, or books which incite shame or embarrassment, it is critical that we as educators reconsider our role and influence on the reading experiences of students. To bring marginalized, racialized, and silenced Canadian stories into the centre of our literacy teaching demands responsible and purposeful disruption of familiar teaching methods, privileged curricula, and normalized learning structures. Through research with South Asian Canadian adolescent girls, it became evident that culturally relevant curricula and culturally responsive teaching were key to their engagement, inclusion and development of identity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.448 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Critical Race InquirySame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207