MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903691867 · doi:10.22329/csw.v19i2.5683

Op-Ed: First Nations Elementary & Secondary School Education – A National Dilemma

2018· article· en· W2903691867 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
H McCue

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Work · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumPolitical scienceDilemmaPublic administrationHumiliationOpposition (politics)National curriculumGovernment (linguistics)Economic growthPrimary educationPedagogySociologyLawPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past five years, First Nations elementary-secondary education has been the focus of some useful recommendations in two major reports: The Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples in 2011, “Reforming FN Education: From Crisis to Hope,” and the 2012 Report of the National Panel on First Nations Elementary-Secondary Education. In response, the Harper government introduced Bill C-33 in 2014, the first-ever federal First Nations Education Act. Both reports identified much-needed reforms and despite vociferous opposition by most First Nations leaders the First Nations Education Act was a serious effort to accommodate some of them. But neither the reports nor the eventually torpedoed Bill C-33 zeroed in on the three key components that serve as the foundation of any education program: teachers, principals, and the curriculum. If these three elements remain untouched in the new Liberal government’s First Nations education policies, First Nations education outcomes will continue to be a national humiliation. This conceptual paper offers a critique of the provincial and federal governments’ approaches to remedying the dire condition of elementary and secondary school education for First Nations youth, with a focus on teachers, principals, and curriculum.

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 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, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0290.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.342 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Social WorkSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207