Storying Treaties and the Treaty Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper represents preliminary findings of a collaborative educational research endeavour to take seriously calls for reconciliation with Aboriginal people within a Canadian context of ongoing colonialism. More specifically, the research takes place in the province of Saskatchewan, where treaty education is mandatory in K–12 classrooms. In this context, critical race theory is used as our theoretical foundation. Working with elementary students, their teachers, and members of the community to support the implementation of treaty education, we draw upon qualitative research methodology and the methods used in participatory action research and digital storytelling. These particular methods are congruent with an inquiry learning approach often used with elementary students. The paper describes the work of young people and their teachers in creating digital stories in which they explore the significance of treaty education and what it means to be a treaty person. It also explores the challenges of this work with respect to teacher, student, and researcher engagement and the ongoing systems of oppression that influence and inform the relationships between First Nations and non-First Nations people in Canada.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".