MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936472946 · doi:10.32865/fire201951135

Addressing Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Indigenous Peoples through Religious Literacy and Spirituality: Unexpected pathways to peace education

2019· article· en· W2936472946 on OpenAlexaffabout
W. Y. Alice Chan, Harriet Akanmori, Christina Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueFIRE Forum for International Research in Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualityIndigenousCommissionLiteracyEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceSociologyLawPhilosophyEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2015, Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) documented 94 callsto-action in relation to the institutional and debilitating legacy of the Indian Residential School System towards Indigenous culture, language, identity, and knowledge in order to actualize reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and Canada. In it, Justice Murray Sinclair explained that education caused much of the problem but is also part of the solution. Concurrently, the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) updated its policy on preventing discrimination based on creed that includes religious and non-religious systems that influence a person's identity, worldview, and lifestyle. In accordance, drawing on a framework of peace education, we present religious literacy and spirituality as pedagogy as potential responses to concerns raised by the TRC and OHRC, and as a means to inform and dialogue about Indigenous cultures and spirituality that have been silenced from public education for centuries. Thus, we reflect on further opportunities towards reconciliation and pathways to peace education in Ontario.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.363 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFIRE Forum for International Research in EducationSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207