MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161426207 · doi:10.7202/044961ar

Culturally relevant schooling in Nunavut: Views of secondary school educators

2010· article· en· W2161426207 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
M. Lynn Aylward

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)PedagogySociologyQualitative researchBilingual educationNeuroscience of multilingualismPsychologySocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nunavut Department of Education is committed to creating culturally relevant Nunavut secondary schools using, as a foundation, the principles of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Inuit traditional knowledge and learning), bilingualism, and inclusive schooling. This paper focuses on the voices of Nunavut secondary school educators by building upon the results of the Sivuniksamut Ilinniarniq research project, which explored multiple graduation options for Nunavut youth and was conducted by the Nunavut Department of Education in 2004. Some of the data for this research project came from a survey of secondary school educators. The open-ended responses revealed three main themes: the role of Inuit language and culture in Nunavut education; an increased role for family and community; and concerns about student engagement. An overview of the initial survey results as well as further qualitative analysis and discussion of the three main themes is provided. For current educational planning, it is necessary to understand how the majority non-Inuit secondary school educators view the Nunavut school system and the possible assumptions embedded within these views.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes/Inuit/StudiesSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207