MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1740972778 · doi:10.56105/cjsae.v25i2.1216

TWO WORLDS, COLONIALISM ON THE CANADIAN PRAIRIE, AND THE ‘JUST’ LEARNING SOCIETY: A RENEWED VISION FOR ADULT EDUCATION

2013· article· en· W1740972778 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paul Kolenick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdult and Continuing Education Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonialismLearning societyPolitical scienceSociologyEnvironmental ethicsMedia studiesLawPhilosophyLifelong learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dualistic nature of adult education as serving the instrumental needs of the workplace, for instance, while remaining committed to issues of social justice is examined in light of the Indigenous metaphor of ‘walking in two worlds.’ This Janus-like duality is illustrated at the outset through the Indigenous story of Coyote’s Eyes as a relationship of imbalance, or disequilibrium, between the two worlds served by adult education. In this essay a brief and selective history of colonialism on the Canadian prairie through the Southern Numbered Treaties (1871-1877), and broadly through the White Paper policy of 1969, is considered with respect to its implications for Indigenous peoples and for adult education as educative practice. As a way toward a sense of balance, or equilibrium, between the two masters of instrumentality and social purpose served by adult education, Michael Welton’s vision of a ‘just’ learning society is brought to light as having potential for a renewed vision for adult education as a balanced, equitable educative practice.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0290.058
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult EducationSame topicAdult and Continuing Education TopicsFrench-language works237,207