Language, Culture, and Pedagogy: A Response to a Call for Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a collaborative project between Tsuut’ina Education and St. Mary’s University, Faculty of Education. The project addresses the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) (2015) Calls to Action in reference to language and culture. Our work with the Gunaha instructors of Tsuut’ina Education was carried out with the intent that the collaboration would benefit not only Tsuut’ina Education students but also the Tsuut’ina community. For carrying out our work with Tsuut’ina Education, we identified the following four principles as relevant to our collaboration: The research (a) is relevant to community needs and priorities and increases positive outcomes; (b) provides opportunities for co-creation; (c) honors traditional knowledge and knowledge holders and engage existing knowledge and knowledge keepers; and (d) builds respectful relationships (Riddell, Salamanca, Pepler, Cardinal, & McIvor, 2017). Finally, we discuss three implications from our partnership: reciprocal relationships, shared expertise, and respect for worldviews. Our collaboration with Tsuut’ina Education offered us an opportunity to embrace an alternate way of knowing and to appreciate the responsibility that we have to listen and learn from others.Keywords: language and culture; collaboration; partnership; reciprocal relationships; shared expertise; respect for worldviews
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".