Youth Education for Advocacy: (Inter)national Dialogue on Advocacy for Human Rights, Equity, and Justice for First Nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For six months, youth from a diverse cross-section of schools across Canada worked on a curriculum project aimed at addressing issues of injustice and inequality facing First Nations children in Canada. Youth came together to collaborate, through the use of technology, to discuss the youths’ vision of justice for First Nations children as well as possible avenues of advocacy to ensure justice and equity. As part of a a decolonizing project that calls for “epistemic disobedience and delinking from the colonial matrix [of power] in order to open up decolonial options” (Mignolo, 2011, p. 9), this project holds potential to decenter mainstream notions of how to ensure justice and equity for First Nations children and simultaneously open new ways of taking up education for reconciliation that attempt to place Indigenous knowledges, traditions and cultures at the centre of our learning. This panel presentation will bring together youth, teachers, and researchers involved with the project to understand youth and advocacy from and the limits and possibilities of an online engagement around and for advocacy, human rights and equity for youth and teachers.
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 | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".