“Melq'ilwiye” Coming Together: Reflections on the journey towards Indigenous social work field education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article shares the reflections, based on exploratory research and practice in the Interior of British Columbia (BC), Canada, of social work and human service field education coordinators on reconciling field education programs. Drawn from a larger study, the authors present the findings from in-depth interviews, using an Indigenous intersectional storytelling approach to understand the experiences of Indigenous and non-Indigenous field coordinators in moving towards an Indigenous field education model. There is limited research on Indigenous field education and few publications on the experiences of field education coordinators about this important area of practice. This article draws from the study's previous publications and focuses specifically on the narratives of field education coordinators in order to contribute to the development of new literature on the process of reconciling field education practices. The findings of the study call for a transformation of field education policies and practices in order to support Indigenous intersectional and culturally safe field education.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".