An exploration of the perceived impact of selected factors related to successful Métis education: the voices of Métis graduates of a rural Manitoba high school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational success eludes many Aboriginal students today. They are not graduating at the same rate as non-Aboriginal students in Canada and in Manitoba. Métis students, although faring a bit better, are still struggling academically, socially and economically. The literature up until now has mainly focused on Aboriginal education and there is limited research on Métis education. Across Canadian society there is a high level of consensus that education is central to individual economic, socio-cultural, and psychological well being, and to the country’s well being. Many factors contribute to their lack of success including racial discrimination and stereotyping of the first peoples of our nation. This qualitative study focuses on student voice and data from six interviews of three male and three female former Métis graduates from a rural Manitoba high school and their perceived impact of school factors related to successful Métis education. This study offers insight for educators and policy makers by highlighting factors that the former students state themselves including elements such as the importance of cultural programming, accessible and caring teachers, parental involvement, and hands-on authentic learning experiences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".