Indigenous pedagogy on childhood: A consultation with the two Anishinabeg communities of Long Point First Nation and Rapid Lake, Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Indigenous communities view children as sacred gifts deserving of love and respect, and as the ones who will carry their collective ways of life forward. However, Indigenous young people within Canada face disproportionate challenges to their health and well-being, partly a result of ongoing colonial practices within professional services. In response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action regarding improvements to professional education and training, our team conducted an international scoping review which identified that Indigenous pedagogy is rarely included in curricular development. We completed this scoping review’s consultation phase in two Anishinabeg communities. In this consultation, we posed the following questions: What are Anishinaabe perspectives on and experiences of child-focused professional practices? How are child-focused professionals currently prepared to work with young Anishinabeg peoples? How should they be prepared? Participants highlighted the importance of professionals learning Indigenous history and Anishinaabe culture, having field-based education, and engaging children with hands-on activities. Professionals encountered little to no Indigenous-focused content in their formal education, with most exposure occurring in continuing education settings. Our results suggest Indigenous ways of knowing can and should be honored in child-focused professional education, thereby supporting the development of effective and culturally-safe relationships between professionals and Indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".