MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138754824 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2010.1.1.5

Registered Indian Children's School Success and Intergenerational Effects of Residential Schooling in Canada

2010· article· en· W2138754824 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Évelyne Bougie, Sacha Senécal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityAboriginal Affairs Northern Dev CanadaStatistics Canada
FundersIndigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
KeywordsResidential schoolFood insecurityMediationSocioeconomicsPovertyIndigenousPsychologyGeographyEconomic growthSociologyFood securityEconomicsAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using the 2006 Aboriginal Peoples Survey, this study investigates factors associated with school success (as perceived by parents) among off-reserve Registered Indian children aged 6 to 14 in Canada. Holding other factors constant, Registered Indian children were more likely to be doing well at school if they were living in households with high income, were living in adequately maintained dwellings, or spoke an Aboriginal language at home. Boys and older children, on the other hand, were less likely to be doing well at school, as were children who were living in larger households, experienced food insecurity, or had parents who attended residential school. Mediation analyses revealed that the negative intergenerational effect of parental residential schooling on children’s school success was partially attributable to household characteristics or economic status. Indeed, former residential school attendees were found to be more likely to live in households with a lower income, live in larger households, and report that their family had experienced food insecurity. These characteristics were, in turn, found to be negatively associated with children’s school success.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207