The Power of Voice: Challenging Racism and Oppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the intricate link between voice and power with a strong focus on the role of the ally in advocating that the voices which have been silenced may be heard and granted authority. Understanding the implications of voice and power in the context of colonialism, racism, oppression, and privilege is a prerequisite for the role of the ally in the work toward a more just social order. Educators, as allies, must open up spaces for the disenfranchised to voice pain, fear, anger, and hope for more equitable distribution of power. With an understanding of the deep wrongs that have been perpetrated and with the opening up of spaces for alternate ways of thinking and knowing, educators can strive to ensure that the voices of the marginalized, be they those of the disabled, of the young, of women, or of Aboriginal people be heard and granted authority and power. How can educators become allies in advocating for the voices of those who have been marginalized? This paper examines four approaches to anti-oppressive education and cites recent developments in Canadian education with a particular focus on current initiatives in Saskatchewan.
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 | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.125 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".