MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278454555

Residential Schools: The Intergenerational Impacts on Aboriginal Peoples

2010· article· en· W2278454555 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cheryle Partridge

Bibliographic record

VenueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrideGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Psychological resilienceSociologyResidential schoolMetisPolitical scienceGenocideEconomic growthGender studiesGeographySocioeconomicsLawPsychologySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many authors, historians and researchers concur with the idea that residential schools have impacted generation after generation of Aboriginal Peoples in this country. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the federal government wanted Aboriginal peoples to abandon their traditional beliefs and adopt western-based values and religions. The investigation of the role and impacts of residential schools on Aboriginal traditional knowledge and mental, emotional, physical and spiritual well-being must be studied within the context of colonization and genocide. Residential schools were funded by the federal government, but were operated by various religious institutions. The goal of residential schools was institutionalized assimilation by stripping Aboriginal peoples of their language, culture and connection with family. Although the assaults on the first peoples of this land have been devastating and intergenerational, as discussed within this article, it is with pride that we celebrate the resilience and tenacity of the holistic well-being of Aboriginal peoples. We are still here.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University)Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207