MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323028974 · doi:10.7202/1096503ar

Épistémologie inuit et pistes de réflexion sur le système d’éducation au Nunavik (Note de recherche)

2023· article· fr· W4323028974 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alyssa Turpin-Samson

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous and Place-Based Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selon le plan stratégique de la commission scolaire du Nunavik Kativik Ilisarniriliniq (KI), l’éducation doit permettre à l’apprenant inuk de devenir un homme à part entière, c’est-à-dire Inuguiniq. Cet objectif implique que le système d’éducation en place doit promouvoir l’insertion socioprofessionnelle de l’apprenant inuk, et ce, tout en préservant son intégrité culturelle. En s’inspirant du système multiniveau de Kanu (2011), nous proposons différentes pistes de réflexion conceptuelles et pratiques relatives à l’adaptation culturelle du système d’éducation du Nunavik, et ce, grâce à une intégration transversale de l’Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. Plus précisément, un regard critique est porté sur l’adaptation culturelle des fondements philosophiques et épistémologiques du système d’éducation, des pratiques et des méthodes évaluatives et pédagogiques, du contenu curriculaire ainsi que des objectifs d’apprentissage. À la lumière de notre argumentaire, cette présentation désire proposer des pistes de solution de manière à favoriser l’autonomisation politique et l’autodétermination des Nunavimmiut en matière d’éducation.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativelow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.337
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.133 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual · Qualitative
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes/Inuit/StudiesSame topicIndigenous and Place-Based EducationFrench-language works237,207