Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes and examines the transition of educational policies and initiatives for the Inuit of Canada since 1950. From 1950 to 1970, the federal government implemented educational policies based on the idea of assimilation. Inuit students were relocated to residential schools in the south, attended day schools or missionary schools in their communities. Teaching styles and curriculum introduced in these schools were unfamiliar to the Inuit, resulted in identity conflicts, difficulties readjusting to their communities and cultural gaps between generations. Most of these problems were caused by a lack of consideration for their culture in educational policies and initiatives. In 1970 administrative responsibility for northern schools was turned over to the government of the Northwest Territories from the federal government, from which time the educational system has become increasingly responsive and better suited to the Inuit's cultural needs. The implementation "Innuquatigiit", a curriculum from the Inuit perspective in 1996, was particularly significant development. In addition to administrators and teachers, communities, especially elders, were involved in process of its development, the major educational goals of which are to pass down Inuit traditions and develop their identity. The transformation of educational administration represented a significant shift in educational policies for the Inuit in terms of its development, educational goals and curriculum. In 1999, establishment of Nunavut Territory gave the Inuit, which comprise about 85 percent of the population of this area, the right to self-government. At present, the Inuit are embarking new educational policies concerning their educational needs.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".