The Experiences of Low German-Speaking Mennonite Men in Alternative Education Programs in Southwestern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tradition of leaving high school and finding full-time employment after grade 8 has put Low German-speaking (LGS) Mennonites in rural Southwestern Ontario in a vulnerable economic position. Consequently, alternative education programs have been developed by Ontario public school boards in areas containing high numbers of LGS Mennonites. The programs strive to keep LGS Mennonite youth in school by creating spaces where primarily male LGS Mennonite students feel more comfortable and can pursue a high school diploma while maintaining their religious beliefs, cultural identity, and work responsibilities. This article draws from qualitative interview data and open-ended survey responses to explore perceptions of LGS Mennonite men’s experiences in alternative education programs, and it highlights factors that caused the men to avoid or leave the programs. This article offers recommendations on how to strengthen the programs to increase the number of LGS Mennonite students attending them. It emphasizes the importance of LGS Mennonite students receiving strong messages from educators that their language, culture, and religious beliefs are valued even if that means separating the youth from Canadian society rather than integrating them on equal terms to minimize their marginalization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".