Traditional ways Shuswap people identified and nurtured gifted and talented girls: Shuswap eminent women tell their stories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the literature on First Nations education is written by Euro- Canadians. However, in recent years, American Indian scholars have initiated research on gifted and talented First Nations children. The purpose of this paper is to present eminent Shuswap womens' perspectives of traditional ways gifted and talented girls were identified and nurtured over their lifetime. Seven eminent Shuswap Elder women from the Interior of British Columbia, whose gifts and talents were identified and nurtured form the nucleus of the study. Because Shuswap people traditionally have an oral culture very little was written of the Shuswap peoples' experiences, therefore, interviewing was deemed the most appropriate research technique. Through the Elder's own words, the experiences of the identification and nurturance of their gifts and talents in the four phases of life (childhood, adolescence, adult, Elder) are presented. The Elders were selected to represent various time periods and several different bands of the Shuswap Nation. All of them have been recognized for their service to the people locally, provincially, or nationally. The most outstanding feature which is revealed by this study is the extent to which the Elders struggled to stay on the path paved for them throughout their lives since their grandparents identified their gifts and talents. Their struggles may be viewed the same way First Nation people continue their fight for their aboriginal rights. The need to continue the work of preserving, recording, perpetuating and enhancing the Shuswap language, history and culture is shown here. Implications for further qualitative research are numerous. From specific aspects of culture such as the Shuswap concept of giftedness and the traditional ways Shuswap people identified and nurtured boys to more general comparisons of finding a national First Nations concept of giftedness or trying to determine how band-operated school are trying to identify and nurture their gifted and talented students, there are many possibilities. What has emerged is strong individuals and cultural group healing, adapting and surviving very well despite the dark ages.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".