MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736159143 · doi:10.20360/g2n95c

An Anishinaabe Perspective on Children’s Language Learning to Inform “Seeing the Aboriginal Child”

2017· article· en· W2736159143 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSociologyContext (archaeology)PraxisLiteracyPedagogyPolitical scienceHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper critically examines attitudes and professional practices based on Western-European epistemologies that perpetuate the socio-cultural mismatch between many Aboriginal children’s home and school. In the spirit of the Calls to Action by Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, an Anishinaabe[1] collaborator on the NOW Play interdisciplinary collaborative research project advocates for social responsibility and cultural competency in research and educational praxis within the context of the early learning and child care environments of Aboriginal[2] children. Culturally sensitive approaches for “seeing the Aboriginal child” are illustrated for moving forward in supportive relationships to promote research and learning in early learning and child care settings. This paper underscores and illustrates the first priority for researchers and educators: to take the time in research and pedagogical encounters to really “see” the Aboriginal child through appreciation of the sociocultural, philosophical, and linguistic distinctiveness of Aboriginal families.Discovery of new knowledge in novel contexts and refinement of understandings with new insights, once consolidated are foundational to knowledge mobilization strategies that include professional development training. A generative process uncovers more effective strategies that honour Indigeneity[3] and meet Aboriginal children’s learning needs.[1] The term Anishinaabe refers Anishinaabemowin-speaking people and the group includes the Algonquin, Chippewa,Delaware,Mississauga, Odawa, and Ojibway and Potawatomi people of the Great Lakes Region.[2] The term Aboriginal is commonly used inCanada and is used in this paper to refer specifically to the Indigenous people inCanada (Helin, 2006). “Aboriginal” is the term used in the Canadian Constitution to refer to Indian, Inuit and Metis”.[3] According to the International Labour Organization of the United Nations, the concept of indigeneity refers to: tribal peoples whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations, and to peoples who are regarded as Indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabit the country at the time of conquest or colonisation. (Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). Article. 1.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.343 · 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