MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399303746 · doi:10.53967/cje-rce.6307

Challenges and Possibilities for Truth and Reconciliation In Teacher Education: An Engagement with the Literature

2024· article· en· W4399303746 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jennifer Tupper, Omoregie Edokpayi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedagogyEpistemologyPsychologySociologyMathematics educationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article delves into the evolving landscape of teacher education within the context of truth and reconciliation, acknowledging the profound role education has played in perpetuating colonial violence against Indigenous peoples. To assess reconciliation efforts in teacher education, a targeted search was undertaken, which resulted in an inductive thematic analysis of 36 scholarly works and the emergence of five overarching themes: anti-racist/anti-oppressive perspectives, decolonization, critical forms of pedagogy/narrativity, indigenization, and historical thinking. The analysis provides valuable insights and highlights challenges of advancing truth and reconciliation in education including the need for a paradigm shift within teacher education programs, urging them to adopt community-focused, land-based, and decolonizing approaches. By aligning with the spirit and intent of truth and reconciliation, and as the studies demonstrate, teacher education has the potential to contribute significantly to advancing the process of healing, justice, and mutual understanding in the journey toward a more equitable and harmonious future.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0250.090
Scholarly communication0.0320.031
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207