Editorial: First Nations' Education at a Critical Juncture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2006 Canadian Census is now out, and the prognosis for on-reserve Aboriginal education is not good. It shows an ever-widening gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal education success (Richards, 2008).When First Nations assumed "control" of their education processes, it was somehow expected that positive change would occur, bringing success with fewer dropouts, more fulfillment, higher completion rates, and an education that would meet modern-day demands. In very few situations has this happened, more by accident than by systematic, administrative reform. In more locations than not, First Nations students have became pawns in a complex and troublesome transfer of control. The system has not changed and nor has the curriculum that supported this system. Control has simply meant a delegation of some authority to First Nations and their locally elected or appointed school boards. The very system that failed to deliver relevant and satisfying education off-reserve has now moved on-reserve. But even more significant, the budget and funding that supported First Nations students in off-reserve schools did not transfer with them. First Nations are expected to deliver the same education with a fraction of the funds designated to Aboriginal students who attend provincial schools. This discrepancy has been pointed out in numerous doctoral dissertations (Steinhauer, 2008), in a variety of scholarly journals (Wilson, 2007), in national newspaper editorials, and in funded research publications (Mendelson, 2008).
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.013 |
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".