Cultural Congruence in the Education of and Research With Young Aboriginal Students: Ethical Implications for Classroom Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.181 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".