Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The British Columbia (BC) provincial government has recently passed legislation to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, thus requiring all governmental institutions to use these rights as a framework in all legislations, policies, and practices, including those concerning education. Current BC K-12 professional standards reflect this framework, directing all teachers to embed local Indigenous knowledge, pedagogies, and worldviews in their classes. This work entails developing relationships with school-based cultural workers and local Indigenous community members to ensure local cultural practices are introduced in schools in ways that are deemed apposite. Yet, determining which practices should be introduced is complicated. Many First Nations are experiencing resurgence, a process of asserting their sovereignty and revitalizing their languages and cultural practices. Some Indigenous scholars have critically examined this process, highlighting how power relations, including those that are gendered, are implicated—for example, regarding decision making about which aspects/forms of culture are considered representative of a given Nation. However, such feminist standpoints are not without controversy, as historically, many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit scholars and activists who identify as female have not self-identified as feminists because, in their view, feminist movements have not represented their interests. In this chapter, we explore the complex relationships among gender, identity, race, and music teaching and learning as they pertain to the politics of “inclusion” of Indigenous musics in BC schools. We configure this chapter as a conversation between us—a Gitxsan cisgender woman employed as an education policy analyst and a cisgender woman of European descent who is a university music education professor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".