Influences on senior schooling pathway choices of first nations students from remote communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When preparing to enter the senior years of secondary education, Australian students choose whether to undertake a vocational or an academic pathway. For all students, this decision-making process is complex, and existing research suggests even more so for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from remote communities studying at boarding schools away from their homes and families. By drawing on critical theory to conduct this qualitative study, the voices of past students who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander were centred while investigating the senior schooling pathway choices made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from remote communities at Queensland boarding schools. The past student experiences were triangulated with a focus group interview with select staff at a Queensland boarding school, and my own autoethnographic reflections. The findings of the thematic content analysis was further augmented through a process of descriptive statistics to summarise publicly accessible data. The key finding that emerged from this study was that First Nations students from remote communities are more likely to undertake a non-academic pathway in their senior years at boarding schools in Queensland despite the possibility that this choice does not align with their genuine pathway preferences. Historical and hegemonic constructs continue to permeate the education system, and unless change occurs at a systemic level, individual staff or school-based initiatives will not result in shifts in available opportunities for First Nations students to freely select from either an academic or a non-academic pathway.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".