“I set out to learn more:” Teacher candidates’ narratives, media literacy and the TRC’s calls to action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, I attempt to understand how an assignment about indigenous history and culture achieved its objective. To do so, I invited teacher candidates to write an essay after reviewing a series of blogs, videos, websites and articles by Indigenous authors or members of the community that they selected over a seven week period. My approach to the assignment represented two central concerns in teacher education: candidates' responses to the TRC's calls to action (62,63); and, their understanding of the relationship between Indigenous knowledge and the curriculum. As a non Indigenous educator, I wanted to learn more about how the candidates connected to their learning about the TRCs calls to action, their understanding of the curriculum and, how they saw their role as an educator in teaching Indigenous culture and history. In sum, the candidates' narratives focused on their increased confidence to teach the curriculum combined with a sense of duty to teach the Indigenous content.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".