SCHOOLS AS PROTECTORATES: STORIES TWO MI’KMAQ MOTHERS TELL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1965, Memmi introduced the concept of a protectorate. ―Whenever the colonizer states, in his language, that the colonized is a weakling, he suggests thereby that this deficiency requires protection. From this comes the concept of a protectorate‖ (pp. 147-8). While this concept is 45 years old, it is an apt metaphor for thinking about current school landscapes, and about how educators are positioned on those landscapes to use their professional knowledge of teaching and learning as protectors of children and parents. We assert that while all parents experience ―protection‖ in their children‘s schools, such protection plays out more strongly with First Nations parents because of historical, societal, socioeconomic, and political divisions (Shields, Bishop, & Mazawi, 2005). As we inquire into stories two Mi‘kmaq mothers tell of their experiences with teachers and administrators, we pull forward narrative threads that make visible how parents are marginalized when schools are structured and administered as protectorates. We invite a reconsideration of who is seen to hold knowledge on school landscapes and whose knowledge counts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".