“What Does Protest Mean?”: A Freirean Intervention In Tamil Genocide Education.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genocide education in Canadian classrooms is often focused on theoretical concepts and legal processes that don’t account for the lived realities of students who encounter ongoing genocidal projects. In the case of the Tamil Genocide, the Ontario government passed Bill 104, or the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, which mandated a seven-day period in May of each year to promote education around the Tamil Genocide. Despite this, students continue to face repression, silencing, and otherwise lack of meaningful resources to explore these topics. This paper examines how Tamil, Tamil-Canadian, and/or Tamil-speaking students experience repression for attempting to discuss the Tamil Genocide in their classroom and how this inhibits their ability to recognize, address, and act on the very real ways intergenerational memories of 2009 show up in their everyday lives. It will explore how critical pedagogue and scholar Paulo Freire’s critique of power and authoritarianism masked as benevolence offers a critical juncture in the study of Tamil Genocide education. Rather than be limited to the parameters of a classroom environment, this paper considers how genocide education takes place in assemblies, community halls, and even within the home. It weaves in reflections from the author as a Tamil Genocide Education facilitator with critical pedagogical theory in an attempt to think laterally with and across interlocking oppressions to conceptualize a generative space in genocide education. By engaging with the overlapping, contradictory, and contextually dense narratives of learners, Tamil Genocide educators can reject singular narrative education and imagine alternative possibilities.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".