MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1672994724 · doi:10.55016/oea/ajer.v51i2.55121

Cultural Congruence in the Education of and Research With Young Aboriginal Students: Ethical Implications for Classroom Researchers

2005· article· en· W1672994724 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCongruence (geometry)PsychologyEducational researchCultural influencePedagogyMathematics educationSocial psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is twofold: (a) to explore in an inner-city kindergarten classroom how Aboriginal students' interaction patterns differ from, and are often in dissonance with, what their non-Aboriginal teacher would expect from his or her non-Aboriginal students; and (b) to explore some of the ethical tensions that we experienced as researchers involved in ethnographic research with these children and their teacher with special attention to the interplay between research and advocacy. While addressing issues of cultural congruence in this classroom, we explore some of the relational complexities that we experienced as we thought about how we should position ourselves in relation to the students and to the teacher and in relation to our perceived ethical responsibilities as researchers. We suggest ways in which researchers might combine caring with advocacy.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.334 · 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