Interview with Lorna Wánosts’a7 Williams in Mount Currie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Production material centres around an interview conducted with Lorna Wánosts’a7 Williams at the home of Tsínay̓a7 (Georgina Nelson). In tape 1, Wánosts’a7 talks about meeting Lettie Battle and the parallels between Battle’s work with African American youth and her own with Indigenous youth; using instrumental enrichment to help struggling students apply, recognize, and value knowledge that they have that is seldom acknowledged in classroom settings; and societal biases against indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups about their inherit cognitive abilities. Tape 2 is unavailable. While the Archives retains the tape intended to have this content, identified as 2017-057-003-017, it appears to have been altered prior to being transferred to the Archives and thus no longer contain this segment of the interview. The content of the missing segments can be found by consulting the audio transcripts. In tape 3, Wánosts’a7 talks about language immersion and language acquisition in children in relation to the revitalization of the Líl̓wat language, Ucwalmícwts; her initial reaction to Reuven Feuerstein’s work, particularly his characterization of cultural deprivation and its applicability to the Lil̓wat7úl; the effects of racism and prejudice on how Indigenous peoples value themselves and their culture; and mediated learning experience. In tape 4, Wánosts’a7 talks about instrumental enrichment teaching; Feuerstein’s cognitive functions; her experience working with Indigenous youth in the Vancouver School District; Feuerstein’s Learning Potential Assessment Device; and David Tzuriel. In tape 5, Wánosts’a7 talks about the role of parents and their beliefs in shaping the education of their children; and her experience visiting the Neve Carmel caravan in Haifa, Israel. The filmed segments of the interview run from 07:00 on tape 1, and continue until 06:10 on tape 5. Additional sequences can be found proceeding and following the interview, including Albert and Levi Nelson doing early morning chores, as well as other scenes around the Nelson farm; and scenes of a cemetery with closeups of the graves of Joseph Lester and George Williams.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.004 |
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".