Institutional engagement with Indigenous communities: the First Nations Partnerships Program and the use of a borderland space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an example of the long term impact of a values-based initiative to create change for Indigenous educational outcomes within a 'mainstream' university. The authors reflected on Institutional Leadership Paradigm (ILP) values, partnerships and institutional transformation as they described the development of an educational partnership program that evolved between First Nations communities and a 'mainstream' university in western Canada called the First Nations Partnership Program (FNPP) at the University of Victoria. At the time the program was initiated in 1989/90, the university had very limited direct, engagement with Indigenous communities and few opportunities on-campus that were specifically designed for Aboriginal students or that were supportive of Aboriginal interests. Twenty years later, the founder of the program, a senior administrator (Associate Vice-President Academic and Student Affairs - who served as the Director of the School of Child and Youth Care. in the early stages of the FNPP program), and the Director, Office of Indigenous Affairs (and Indigenous community leader) look back at the history of the program, which the founder describes as evolving in the borderland of the university (Pence 2006). From their three different perspectives, the authors reflect on the degree to which the University of Victoria, and tertiary institutions more generally, have evolved to address issues of educational concern to Indigenous communities and the degree to which the experiences of the FNPP are still relevant and useful today. The experiences of the FNPP can be seen to reflect the values expressed in the ILP and they are related here in fulfillment of this university's participation in the ILP project.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".