Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Developed by KAIROS, the Blanket Exercise is a celebrated educational tool that uses role-play in an attempt to convey Canadian history from an Indigenous perspective.The goals of the exercise speak to a movement towards truth and reconciliation in Canada, but a content analysis exposes that the exercise is limited in its capacities for supporting a movement towards decolonization. Unangax scholar Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang remind all scholars and educators that decolonization is not a metaphor. If a process is not specifically oriented toward the repatriation of Indigenous lands, it is not a decolonial process. However, as more settlers come to consider decolonization and mobilize it in pedagogical contexts, it has been employed loosely, liberally and without the necessary care. The incompleteness of the narrative and representations in the Blanket Exercise, exacerbated and facilitated by metaphor, reifies a distorted history of Canada. Rather than disrupt settler colonialism it reproduces it. The KAIROS Blanket Exercise cannot function as a decolonial educational tool as it strategically employs metaphors to disengage the material power of decolonization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 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, 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".