USE OF AN INDIGENOUS LEARNING BUNDLE IN AN ENGINEERING PROJECT COURSE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada a range of Collaborative Indigenous Learning Bundles have been introduced at a Canadian university to provide ways for Indigenous knowledge to be incorporated into courses across the university. One of the first courses in the engineering faculty to use the Indigenous Environment Relations Bundle was a third year project course for the BEng Electrical Engineering program. The use of the bundle, through the learning management system, was part of the lecture series and was used in a class discussion with an optional reflection. The objective was to provide complementary Indigenous knowledge to the discussion of the environmental impact of engineering. A first year introductory engineering course used the First Peoples: A Brief Overview. The response of the students in both courses was respectful and produced thoughtful discussions. Those that undertook the optional reflection produced insightful and often personal thoughts on a particular place. The use of the bundles shows that Indigenous matters and information from knowledge keepers can be integrated into engineering courses.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it