MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296211798 · doi:10.1353/jaie.2022.0003

Editors’ Introduction

2022· article· en· W4296211798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, Teresa L. McCarty, Angelina E. Castagno, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American Indian Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousIdentity (music)SociologyMeaning (existential)PedagogyTraditional knowledgeMedia studiesPsychologyAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editors’ Introduction Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, Teresa L. McCarty, Angelina E. Castagno, and Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer The journal of american indian education has entered its 61st volume year! We are excited by the possibilities that lie ahead, beginning with the lineup of authors and articles in this issue. We launch the volume with Vincent Werito and Vangee Nez, who ask us to consider the ways that Indigenous teachers think about their teaching practices and their students’ learning practices when engaged through culturally appropriate materials. Their article, “‘Light a Little Candle in Their Hearts’: Learning From Educators of Indigenous Youth About Culturally Sustaining/Revitalizing Teaching Practices in Contemporary Contexts,” raises important questions about what kinds of academic content matter and how Indigenous-based content should be used to teach Indigenous children. Werito and Nez ask us to consider Indigenous pedagogies and call for researchers to be more systematic and purposeful in focusing on Indigenous students who learn through Indigenous-centered pedagogies. In many ways, this article lays important groundwork for future research on the full meaning of pedagogy: the process of thinking about both teaching and learning. In the next article, “‘You’re Not Going to Round Me to Zero, You’re Going to Round Me to at Least One, I Will at Least Be One’: Lumbee Erasure, Identity, and Stories of a Lumbee Professor and a Lumbee Student,” Brittany Danielle Hunt and Megan Locklear raise the following questions: What does it mean to have a professor/teacher who understands your identity and your lived experiences? What does it mean to have a student who understands their professor’s identity and lived experiences? Many Indigenous students still have not had an Indigenous professor. This article illuminates the need for the presence and visibility of teachers who understand their students and the power of those teachers in the learning of students. And finally, Adam T. Murry, Tyara Marchand, Emily Wang, and Daniel Voth, in their article, “The Five-Factor Model of Indigenous Studies: A Quantitative Content Analysis of Postsecondary Indigenous Studies Websites in Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand,” offer four areas of intersection in Indigenous Studies programs in four [End Page 1] countries. These global intersections, drawn from an analysis of web-sites, include Indigenous methodologies, Indigenous community involvement, Indigenous ways of knowing and being, and student communities. Their article inspires further questions for all of us: What role does Indigenous Studies play in service to our communities? What role can it play? What role should it play? The article is an invitation for deeper consideration of these questions. Taken together, this trio of articles points us toward how language, culture, representation, and well-being intersect in learning communities, and their significance. These communities are dyads (Hunt and Locklear), teachers and youth (Werito and Nez), and higher education programming (Murry et al.). We agree that seeing oneself in the learning materials and teaching practices, and in the context of our own critically reflexive teaching, is crucial to vital Indigenous futures. We admire this collection of important research and are honored to bring it forward. Please enjoy, and gift this wisdom forward. [End Page 2] Warmly, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy and Teresa L. McCarty, Editors Angelina E. Castagno and Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, Associate Editors Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy and Teresa L. McCarty Editors Angelina E. Castagno and Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer Associate Editors Copyright © 2022 Arizona Board of Regents

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American Indian EducationSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207