MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392982955 · doi:10.32396/usurj.v9i1.713

We Are All Treaty People

2024· article· en· W4392982955 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Emily Zepick

Bibliographic record

VenueUSURJ University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousCurriculumChristian ministryTreatyPolitical scienceIndigenous educationSubject (documents)Subject matterPedagogySociologyPublic administrationPublic relationsLibrary scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the Saskatchewan curriculum, one goal of K-12 education is ensuring that students come out of classrooms knowing that they, like all Canadians, are treaty people. This focus is touched on in select curriculum guides and within the Treaty Education Outcomes and Indicators document that has been in use by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education since 2013. While measures such as these have made the province seem to be ahead of other Canadian provinces in terms of Indigenous education, more needs to be done to ensure that this content is implemented into subject matter throughout the curriculum. The focus of this paper is on implementation methods and examples in high school Arts and STEM classrooms, as research from select organizations and from other Canadian education ministries reveals that Indigenous content can be implemented into the curricular outcomes present within these subjects. The culmination of this research looks into how the implementation of Indigenous content can aid in both the teaching of Canadian Reconciliation and in furthering the use of anti-oppressive education of which Indigenous education is a part.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.013

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSURJ University of Saskatchewan Undergraduate Research JournalSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207