MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995893170 · doi:10.31468/cjsdwr.745

Steps on the Path towards Decolonization: A Reflection on Learning, Experience, and Practice in Academic Support at the University of Manitoba

2019· article· en· W2995893170 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Monique Dumontet, Marion J. Kiprop, Carla Loewen

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscourse and Writing/Rédactologie · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecolonizationIndigenousHomelandSociologyWork (physics)PedagogyGender studiesMedia studiesPolitical scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay comes out of a panel presentation featured at the 2018 Canadian Association Writing Centres Conference entitled, “Steps on the Path of Decolonization” where representatives of the Academic Learning Centre and the Indigenous Student Centre from the University of Manitoba collaborated to discuss how our student support offices have made efforts at decolonizing our work. We three women of Canadian Settler, International, and Indigenous backgrounds reflect on how the journey on the path towards decolonization has been for us personally, and on how post-secondary institutions can move forward with the work of decolonization, particularly within Writing/Learning Centres. Key themes included the need for ongoing learning, the value of building collaborative relationships, and the importance of creating safe and inviting spaces. Our conclusions suggest that decolonization is a complex journey for individuals and for post-secondary institutions. To begin in a good way, the writers would like to acknowledge that we work at the University of Manitoba, which is located on original lands of Anishinaabeg, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota, and Dene Peoples, and on the homeland of the Métis Nation.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0850.050
Scholarly communication0.0190.006
Open science0.0050.018
Research integrity0.0060.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscourse and Writing/RédactologieSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207