Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dream of a culturally responsive classroomThe United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples [UNDRIP] 1 asserts the right to self-determination.The draft UNDRIP faced criticisms of Articles 3 and 4 and its call for selfdetermination which ultimately led to all four British colonial states -Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States -voting against the UNDRIP in 2007 2 .The UNDRIP has become a vehicle in which Indigenous peoples can speak back to the settler state and therefore, Article 14 of the UNDRIP is particularly important to consider as an Indigenous education academic as it speaks to Indigenous peoples right to education and establishing their own educational systems.It is Article 14 which acts as the provocation for this paper."Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning" 3 .Such a statement has often been interpreted as a precursor to the notion of decolonising, or what is more favoured here in colonial Australia -indigenising, schools.However, as Tuck and Wang argue, decolonisation is fraught with complexities 4 .The notion of decolonisation has the potential to continue and maintain the process of colonisation under the guise of addressing White fragility.And then the question needs to be asked -what does a decolonised education system look like?How can schools and its curriculum be decolonised when funding is dependent on the enactment of the Australian Curriculum and reporting to Western standards?With that in mind, how can Indigenous peoples establish their educational systems?Is this why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures are still seen as 'bolted on' rather than 'built in' to the education system as it is?Governments talk big and you would be forgiven to think that there has been a shift in political rhetoric in recent years.Prime Ministers have espoused to make a "commitment that […] Government would do things with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, not do things to them" 5 which has most recently been translated to the formation of the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations [the Coalition of Peaks] to provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice in decision-making 6 .The Coalition of Peaks is made up of various Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Bodies both Federal and State.However, it is noted that within the almost 40 governance bodies that make up the Coalition of Peaks, only two of these are explicitly working in the field of education.It is difficult to see how education is a focus when there is so little representation in this key governance body.Unfortunately, underrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the education space is evident throughout.The More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teacher 1 (United Nations General Assembly, 2008) 2 (Ferreira, 2013) 3
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".