Reconciliation in Action and the Community Learning Centres of Quebec: The Experiences of Teachers and Coordinators Engaged in First Nations, Inuit and Métis Social Justice Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) called for all provinces and territories in Canada to develop curriculum related to residential schools, most ministries of education began the process of reform. Despite this Call to Action, Quebec remains the only province that has yet to publicly commit to or develop any curricula related to residential schools. In this context, this study examines the Community Learning Centre (CLC) network, which has empowered English schools across Quebec to participate in projects that address the Calls to Action, encouraging social justice and reconciliation. It examines the experiences of teachers and CLC coordinators who have participated in CLC projects between 2012-2016. The findings indicate that there is increasing frustration among teachers concerning the absence of residential school history from the Quebec curriculum. Findings also indicate many pedagogical benefits of teaching for social justice. Finally, the study identifies challenges and best practises, and provides recommendations for program and curriculum development in the movement for reconciliation in education in Quebec.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".