Blurring the Boundaries of Policy and Legislation in the Schooling of Indigenous Children in British Columbia, 1901-1951
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractHistorical accounts of Indigenous education maintain that until the early 1950s settler and Indigenous children were educated in separate facilities regulated under separate legislation and overseen by separate authorities. This study illustrates that in British Columbia between 1901 and 1951, the dual system of schooling seemingly embodied in government policy was not implemented by federal or provincial authorities as strictly as historians have assumed. This article illuminates the ways that officials from both systems sometimes blurred the boundaries of policies and legislation that officially circumscribed students’ lives in order to enhance youngsters’ access to education.RésuméDes récits de l’histoire de l’éducation autochtone soutiennent que jusqu’au début des années 1950, les enfants des colons et ceux des autochtones ont été instruits dans des institutions séparées, sous des règlements et des autorités différentes. Cette étude démontre qu’entre 1901 et 1951, en Colombie-Britannique, cette dualité du système d’éducation prônée par la législation n’a pas été appliquée aussi strictement par les autorités fédérales ou provinciales que les historiens le laissent entendre. Notre étude met en lumière les façons dont certains officiels dans les deux systèmes faisaient fi des politiques et des lois encadrant officiellement la vie des élèves afin de favoriser leur accès à l’éducation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".