Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore young students' perceptions about the impacts of Indian residential schools. A hopeful era of reconciliation has been ushered in to confront the injustices committed to approximately 150,000 indigenous children and youth in Canada’s Indian residential schools in the not-so-distant past. Of these children, there were at least 6,000 recorded deaths; those who survived, faced the devastating impacts of forced assimilation. In the spirit of making “relation to and with the past, opening us to a reconsideration of the terms of our lives now as well as in the future” (Simon, 2006, p. 189), the author invited eight- and nine-year-olds to depict their thoughts about Indian residential schools. Design/methodology/approach A practitioner inquiry stance was used in this study. This approach takes into account that teachers are uniquely positioned to carry out highly contextualized classroom research. The data include a documentary analysis, observations of students’ work and short interview-like prompts. The data also included stimulated recall using student-participant responses to elicit feelings, thoughts, attitudes and beliefs (Freeman, 1998). A collaborative approach to the data analysis“engaging the author’s own and students’ interpretations of their work”allowed for a range of perspectives that address representativeness (Cornish et al., 2014). Findings Students’ representations reveal that even young children engage in political thought by understanding governance structures that are impinged upon young lives in Indian residential schools. The students in this study positioned themselves as “cultural citizens” (Kuttner, 2015) by contributing compelling ideas on power, relationships, displacement, assimilation and identity, in their mixed media texts. Rather than reducing what they had learned only to questions of oppression, they proposed possibilities of living a more ethical present by including teachings about living more ethically than those that have come before them. Originality/value This work aims to deepen decolonizing possibilities in classroom research, particularly in elementary classrooms.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.008 |
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".