NATIVE STUDIES IN ONTARIO HIGH SCHOOLS: Revitalizing Indigenous Cultures in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I hypothesize that specific aspects of education are central to the revitalization of culture amongst Aboriginal peoples in Ontario, and that this revitalization is integral to cultural continuity.I will show the relationship between key aspects of education and cultural revitalization as I track and assess the impacts of Ontario's high school NativeStudies suite of courses.The key aspects are: the ability to generate and control content, the content itself (who it targets and serves and how it is applied) and how innovative ideas are implemented, through what processes and with whose help. Recent trends emerging from the analysis of Ontario Ministry of Education(OME) data on the implementation of its suite of ten Native Studies high school courses suggest that the consistent efforts of several generations of First Nations, Mtis and Inuit educators working behind the scenes since the late 1960s have resulted in significant and meaningful increases in the number of Native Studies courses offered, the number of schools and school boards offering them, and the number of students enrolling.Considering the context of Aboriginal education in Ontario since the 1960s these general results may certainly be interpreted as progressive.I discuss seven catalysts that have had an indisputable influence over the ability of Indigenous educators to exercise an increasing degree of control over the Ontario Ministry of Education Native Studies curricula.While acknowledging the perspectives of scholars such as Taiaiake Albert, Maria Battiste, Pamela Palmater and Marie Brant-Castellano I want to thank the cultural and academic giants upon whose shoulders I have stood in order to see my topic in all its complexity.Thank you to my academic advisor, Anne Godlewska, for your open and inclusive welcome into a world that was only a dream up until then.It is beyond my imagination what has transpired since our meeting at Queen's in spring 2009.Your constancy, your brilliance, your devoted attention to detail, your ability to lead, to plan and to create, place you at the forefront.I am honoured to have the opportunity
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".