Latinx Experiences in the Ontario Education System: Race, Invisibility, and Capital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores Latinx youth’s experience in the Ontario education system and the level of support they encounter throughout their education. Based on phenomenological qualitative interviews, this study found that Latinx youth in Ontario lacked sufficient support networks throughout their childhood and adolescence. Using Bourdieu’s theory of capital and education, as well as Latino Critical Race Theory (LatCrit), this research explores how a lack of access to relevant capital positions Latinx youth at a disadvantage in their educational attainment and how their unique experiences are unrecognized. This article is based on a total of 52 participants (27 one-on-one interviews and 23 participants in two focus groups). The findings indicate that youth perceive parents to have limited social networks, skills, and knowledge necessary to assist their children in the Ontario education system. School teachers, guidance counsellors, and principals who are positioned to provide supplemental support for marginalized youth often failed to provide any significant guidance. Youth were faced with finding alternative modes of support or depending entirely on themselves. Given the lack of discourse surrounding the unique experience of the Latinx minority, the experiences of Latinx youth remain mostly unseen.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".