Research watch: routes to marginalised students’ increased inclusion and empowerment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper was to report on recent research about how students belonging to marginalised groups can be empowered. Design/methodology/approach The author searched for articles that covered the topic of empowerment, published in the past two years. The author selected two papers that each focus on a different group and illustrate processes of empowerment applicable in their contexts. Findings The first paper deals sensitively with the topic of in-fighting amongst Indigenous students at Canadian universities and how Canada’s colonisation history contributes to this. It also illustrates how Indigenous students are working together to improve universities’ recognition of their needs and rights. The second paper describes a consciousness-raising programme for Black girls in secondary schools in Pennsylvania, USA. Black girls attending the programme valued it and felt more connected with other Black girls. There was some dropout from the programme, but those who remained appeared to benefit. Originality/value These two papers represent important illustrations of some complex challenges facing marginalised groups and how their empowerment and inclusion can increase, with implications for their mental and physical well-being.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".