MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942060650 · doi:10.55016/ojs/jet.v39i3.52605

Perspectives on Local Control of Education With a Future Orientation: A View From First Nations

2018· article· en· W2942060650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seth A. Agbo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrientation (vector space)Control (management)SociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPedagogyEconomicsManagementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1972 the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB) issued a landmark document, Indian Control of Indian Education that brought a new beginning to First Nations education throughout Canada. There has been a remarkable increase in First Nations-controlled schools since 1975. This paper traces the historical background of the Canadian government's education policy for First Nations and uses a First Nations reserve community as a point of reference to examine First Nations' viewpoints on local control of schooling and how to mobilize for the solution of problems concerning school governance. The paper addresses the following specific issues: (a) powers the government of Canada bestows on First Nations in the control of their school system, (b) powers community people perceive they possess in the control of education, (c) the actual structures that the community employs in the control of education, and (d) First Nations top priority needs in school governance and suggested specific strategies for dealing with each of the priority needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.035
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of educational thought.Same topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207