Exploring the Unique Features of a First Nations Graduate-Level Social Work Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a one-time cohort of graduate-level social work students completed a unique MSW program. The program was delivered in partnership between the Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary and Blue Quills First Nations College and, of the twenty four graduates; twenty-one were of First Nations or Me´tis ancestry. The program honored traditional knowledge and ways of learning combined with a critical analysis of Western perspectives of social work knowledge. Strong fiscal resources enabled the program to establish a formal support network for the students and to support the development of Indigenous curriculum and programming that encouraged success for the students. The program was fundamentally different than urban on-campus programs while still maintaining graduate level accreditation requirements. This analysis of the program required the use of Indigenous Research Methodology to collect and create an understanding of the program. Instructors commented on the centered, empowered, balanced, and congruent students. The formal and informal, concrete and invisible supports to the students ensured the success of this program and this cohort of students. As one student commented, the program started in ceremony, ended in ceremony, and could not fail within the context ceremony.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".