A mixed methods investigation of Indigenous university students’ experiences with and strategies to challenge racism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this mixed methods program of research, we investigated Indigenous participants' experiences with racism at a Canadian postsecondary institution. METHOD: = 485), we surveyed Indigenous students about their experiences with racism. Participants responded to items about the frequency of potentially racist incidents, how those incidents made them feel, and if they considered those incidents as racist. They also responded to items about positive race-based experiences and their feelings about their on-campus experience. RESULTS: In Study 1, participants experienced many different types of racism: internalized (including racial microaggressions, modern racism, and old-fashioned racism), interpersonal, institutional, and structural. They also shared the negative impacts of experiencing racism and the ways they challenged and coped with racism. In Study 2, participants indicated that they experienced racism on campus regularly and that these experiences tended to make them feel bad. Participants also experienced positive race-based experiences and felt good in these cases. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-Indigenous racism happens with alarming regularity at the institution and negatively impacts Indigenous participants, though participants actively push back against racism. We discuss the implications and future research directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".