On Whose Territory Does Our School District Reside? Beginning Steps Toward Relationship Development With Urban First Nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the 2015 release of Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report in Canada, disciplines at various levels of federal and provincial infrastructures have begun taking up reconciliation in their practice. In 2018, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) and the Psychology Foundation of Canada (PFC) released a joint response, which outlines how the profession has violated its own ethics with respect to practice with Indigenous peoples and how to move forward through a reconciliatory process as individuals and as a profession. What is unclear is how individual psychologists and psychologist teams are taking up reconciliation in their practice, years after the CPA/PFC Response to the TRC. As psychologists and other helping professionals learn about the history of marginalization of Indigenous peoples within the discipline of psychology, many may be searching for more specific examples of how to begin or extend the process of addressing reconciliation. This Brief Commentary will focus on the practice of one group of school psychologists working in a public school district in an urban setting in British Columbia who are engaging in relationship development with First Nations communities on whose territory the district resides. Psychologists from the team will contribute reflections regarding their experience with the process as a whole. These psychologists have been part of a school psychology team that has been involved in reconciliation for some time and are actively pursuing individual and group accountability toward Indigenous people. The context of the group and steps taken from the team’s personal and professional introduction to the topic of reconciliation, and facilitators and considerations that impacted the group’s progress will be explored.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".