Exploring Indigenization and decolonization in cross-cultural education through collaborative land-based boundary education
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
This article considers the potential for collaboratively produced boundary education as an advancement of the boundary work concept in academia. The boundary work process aims to support collaboration that works around social, cultural, political, epistemological, and other forms of boundaries. We explore how education can act as a boundary object through the development and implementation of a pilot project for land-based educational programming offered through a university. In particular, we share observations arising through a land-based education initiative that engaged Indigenous land stewards from Wabaseemoong Independent Nation and students from The University of Winnipeg. Our approach is grounded in an extended conceptual framework and process for conducting boundary work in the context of collaborative educational design and implementation involving educators from academia and Indigenous community partners. The pilot project provided baseline insights for future boundary education collaborations and provided some direction for future work.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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