Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is based on twenty-three interviews conducted with Indigenous faculty at ten universities in Canada. Only .9% of total university faculty are Indigenous. While Indigenous faculty shared some concerns with racialized faculty such as under-representation, the lack of diversity among senior administration, and the policies around tenure and promotion decisions, most of their apprehensions were unique to their Indigenous heritage and cultural lifestyle. In the first instance, their few numbers are highly concentrated in certain disciplines—the so-called helping disciplines such as social work, education and law. Most of their studies are taught in programs as there are very few departments. Issues such as who should teach Indigenous studies; the design of Indigenous curriculum and whether Indigenous studies should be mainstreamed or “ghettoized” in separate areas of the university were highlighted. They also feared the loss of personal identity as an Indigenous people. A critical concern for Indigenous faculty is that their research is primarily within their own communities and, as such, is not valued or legitimated for tenure and promotion purposes. Some also expressed the view that their entire discipline—Indigenous studies—was not considered a true university discipline. Cet article s’appuie sur 33 entrevues menées auprès de professeurs autochtones dans dix universités canadiennes. Ces derniers ne font que 9% de l’ensemble du corps professoral universitaire. Bien qu’ils aient certains problèmes en commun avec leurs collègues des minorités visibles, comme ceux de la sous-représentation, le manque de diversité dans la haute administration et les politiques portant sur la titularisation et les promotions, ils s’inquiètent quant à eux beaucoup plus de leur héritage indigènes et leur mode de vie culturel. Avant tout, leur petit nombre est fortement concentré dans certaines disciplines – dites «de service au public», comme le travail social, l’éducation et la loi. Vu le peu de départements d’Études autochtones, celles-ci sont pour la plupart seulement enseignées dans des programmes. Elles sont aussi l’objet d’autres questions dont : qui devrait les enseigner, la détermination du curriculum et si on devrait les intégrer à l’ensemble des autres cours ou les «ghettoïser» dans des zones séparées de l’université. Ils craignent aussi la perte de leur identité en tant que peuples indigènes. L’inquiétude essentielle du corps professoral autochtone vient de ce que leurs recherches ont avant tout lieu au sein de leur propre communauté et qu’en tant que telles, elles ne reçoivent ni validation, ni légitimation pour obtenir une titularisation et des promotions. Quelques uns de ses membres ont aussi exprimé leur opinion que le domaine dans son entier – à savoir les études autochtones – n’est pas considéré comme une véri-table discipline universitaire.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it