MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399847215 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v48i2.54917

In Their Own Voices: First Nations Students Identify Some Cultural Mediators of Their Learning in the Formal School System

2002· article· en· W4399847215 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Yatta Kanu

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMathematics educationCultural influencePedagogySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theories of cognition argue that children develop thinking, communication, learning, and motivational styles consistent with the culture into which they are socialized. Cultural socialization, therefore, influences how students learn, particularly how students mediate, negotiate, and respond to curriculum materials, instructional strategies, learning tasks, and communication patterns in the classroom. But what specific aspects of culture influence the learning of a particular group of students? The author set out to answer this question in relation to First Nations students by conducting research among First Nations students in a Winnipeg high school. Five culturally relevant themes were identified that provide insights into the development of appropriate instruction for preservice teachers for the enhancement of cross-cultural communication, the design and implementation of assessment strategies, and the creation of effective instructional materials. These are traditional Aboriginal approaches to learning, patterns of oral interaction, concepts of self, curriculum relevance, and the educator's interpersonal style.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.360 · 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
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

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207