The Role of Educational Spaces in Supporting Inuit Youth Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous youth in Canada grow up in communities shaped by the enduring political and economic legacies of settler colonialism. These legacies continue through systemic marginalisation, manifesting in strained sociocultural resources, intergenerational trauma, and poorer psychosocial outcomes for youth. To redress these outcomes, communities are drawing on traditional culture, together with life philosophies and frameworks, to identify relevant resources that better support young people and their development. Research findings support these approaches, demonstrating the importance of cultural continuity and related enculturation, in promoting improved psychosocial outcomes. The emerging question however, is how to foster increased engagement by children and youth. Spaces & Places, a participatory action study positioned within a resilience framework, responds to this question. In this article, we draw on findings from one of the three participating communities to highlight the complexities in understanding youth cultural engagement. We also explore ways in which communities can better support such engagement. In particular, findings highlight that youth perceptions of, and engagement with, resources is complex. Despite this complexity, socially embedded relationships and engagement with land-based, cultural activities are valued. While youth reflect a predominantly ambivalent attitude towards school, their narratives simultaneously suggest school as being a potential site within which to powerfully support their social and cultural engagement. Drawing on these findings, we recommend that schools and related educational systems adopt policies and service delivery practices that will facilitate the integration of external, community-based resources into the delivery of curriculum via more land-based and cultural activities.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".