Morality and the Academic Journey: Perspectives of Indigenous Scholars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following high profile cross-Canadian examinations of Indigenous[1] peoples and their experiences such as those of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, many universities and colleges have begun to make commitments that support Indigenous engagement; the institutional effort to engage with the experiences, histories, and perspectives of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to improve the academic journey. These initiatives, called for in many institutional statements of commitment such as those found in strategic plans, support institutional change in which the experiences, histories, and perspectives of Indigenous peoples are central. Many of these initiatives involve the exploration of Indigenous spiritual and religious orientations that may guide personal and academic journeys. In this study, we sought to acquire knowledge on moral understandings that are resident in the consciousness of Indigenous faculty, professors, and instructors working in universities and colleges across North America. This study showed that participants found that their professional situations supported their respective journeys of self-discovery. Participants also reported that their roles were informed by how they navigated Indigenous and non-Indigenous values, as well as how they can support and/or mitigate their institutions’ influence upon the advancement of Indigenous engagement. Although much of the professional responsibilities of participants, such as instruction and research, were predominant in their working lives, a prevailing sense of responsibility to the journey of reconciliation and the support of Indigenous engagement was reported. [1] In this article, the term Indigenous refers to the First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada and related territories.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".