Colonial encounters in the classroom: Adult educators making sense of Inuit resistance to schooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult education was an integral component of the colonisation of the Canadian Arctic. Between the 1960s and the 1990s, educational programmes were explicitly developed in order to shape Inuit adults in particular ways: from teaching them how to live in permanent houses, to teaching them how to work as administrators and tradespeople. Inuit did not unanimously embrace such programmes. This article examines how Euro–Canadian adult educators during the 1980s made sense of Inuit resistance to schooling. Educators perceived resistance in terms of ‘problems’ relating to student attendance, punctuality, attrition and work habits. Educators interpreted such problems in terms of individual deficits of motivation and sometimes linked such deficits to cultural or social factors. Educators offered ‘solutions’ ranging from moral exhortation to social marketing campaigns and community-based research. While this article describes how Euro–Canadian adult educators interpreted the resistance of Inuit students, its implications are of value to scholars and practitioners working in a range of contexts where educators and students have different cultural, demographic or socio-economic backgrounds. The article provides a nuanced account of what it is like to be an educator in an environment where many adults do not appear to welcome the education being offered to them.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".