MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2715194349

On Intersectionality: Decolonization, Inclusion, and Diversity-focused Pedagogies

2017· article· en· W2715194349 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joelle Nagle

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersectionalityDecolonizationInclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)SociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceAnthropology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this Special Issue (English) is to divert attention from the insidious global discourses centered on the re-assertion of white dominance through anti-immigration policies, and shift the conversation to one centered on the important work being done in graduate educational research that acknowledge our history and reflects on our role(s) in the continued treatment of Indigenous peoples and people of colour within Canada. This is with the aim to engage in anti-oppressive pedagogies that not only envisage reconciliation, but that consider action towards reconciliation. This is evidenced through a discourse analysis of the First Nation, Métis, and Inuit Education Policy Framework in Ontario (Currie-Patterson & Watson), a quanti-qualitative study on racism and reverse racism with teachers in Alberta (Lorenz), an exploration of the historical and contemporary impacts of racism on children of colour in our schools (Brady), and the examination of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s First Report and the consideration of a context-responsive pedagogical framework for an education for reconciliation (Siemens).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0290.096
Scholarly communication0.0210.022
Open science0.0040.042
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.262
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→