MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280131476

Ethnic Studies: The Cyclical Fight, Conquer, and Struggle

2012· article· en· W2280131476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Queena Hoang

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks -A service of University of Vermont Libraries (University of Vermont) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModel minorityMeritocracyEthnic groupClass (philosophy)Asian americansGender studiesWhite (mutation)MythologyQuarter (Canadian coin)SociologyPsychologyPedagogyMathematics educationPolitical scienceHistoryLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1968, the San Francisco State College Third World Liberation Front made history for the longest student strike in America. Armed with a growing self-awareness and a determination to end Eurocentric biases in the classroom, students of Color rallied in a five-month battle for the first School of Ethnic Studies. These were the first moments of making history and creating a future of stories and voices for those unheard. Forty-three years later, American K-12 and higher education school systems have come full circle with new legislation such as Arizona’s House Bill (HB) 2281. Ethnic studies departments are constantly caught in a stage of struggle for academic legitimacy (Chen, 1989). This article explores the criticism and critiques of ethnic studies courses, namely focusing on HB 2281. I will also discuss the value of these courses and the ways in which they can positively influence campus climate, in addition to how ethnic studies has personally affected my journey into higher education and student affairs.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.054
Scholarly communication0.0190.009
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks -A service of University of Vermont Libraries (University of Vermont)Same topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207