Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the author’s contention that South Asian females are raised within a familial culture which may serve to devalue them and in addition, can potentially bring them into conflict with dominant school narratives. As such, South Asian female students learning in Canada require alternative stories, “counterstories,” (Lindemann Nelson, 1995) and/or counter-narratives on which to construct their identities. In attempting to respond to the question as to how IndoCanadian female students can negotiate their “stories to live by,” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000) those complex narratives dealing with ethnicity, culture, family, school, and identity, the author puts forward the premise that children’s literature can lead to a positive response. Selected children’s literature are surveyed as a possible means of cultivating strong cross-cultural connections amongst students, parents, and teachers, and assisting Indo-Canadian girls in primary and secondary grades to succeed as healthy individuals. Woven throughout the paper are brief fragments of a story which the author wrote and chose to include as a way of employing a metaphorical device.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".