Indigenous Peoples’ and modern Western ethics and educative leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper relates Indigenous Peoples’ moral philosophies to modern Western ethical thinking that is evident in leading contemporary theories of educative leadership. It introduces Indigenous ethics in general and explains the philosophical research methodology used. It then reports Celtic, Māori, North American Indian and Canadian First Nations, Australian Aboriginal and Emirati ethical frameworks in greater detail and relates them to modern Western ethics prominent in contemporary theories of transformational, instructional, distributed, and ethical leadership. It finds that Indigenous philosophies emphasise the interconnectedness of humans and nature, spirituality in ethical decision-making, and collectivism, while Western frameworks often prioritise individualism and separate the spiritual from the secular. It suggests that leaders consider incorporating Indigenous perspectives on sustainability, social responsibility, and spirituality into curricula and educational practices, promoting global citizenship and ethical awareness. This will entail recognising customary laws and traditions, supporting decolonisation efforts, and ensuring accurate representation of Indigenous knowledge. By fostering mutual respect and understanding of diverse ethical traditions, educative leaders can create more inclusive, equitable educational environments that value the contributions of both Indigenous and Western moral philosophies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".