Inuit values in adult education : a Nunavik case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate Inuit values and needs in Inuit Adult Education. These can only originate from the Inuit themselves: those attending and employed in Adult Education Centres in Nunavik, graduates of both vocational and academic adult education programs, Elders, local education committee members, directors of Northern educational institutions and community leaders. This study examined values in Inuit adult education of one Inuit community's educational and community representatives and students, and how these educational needs may be met so as to respect Inuit traditions. In this qualitative study, research methods included: filmed interviews, surveys and open-ended questionnaires, field notes, and participant observation. It was found that the Inuit are in effect finding themselves between two cultures and two education systems. There is a gap in knowledge between the Inuit vision of education and the non-Inuit vision of education. It was concluded that there is a perceived need to integrate the teaching of traditional Inuit skills and knowledge with contemporary curricula: to unite both into a curriculum that embraces the advantages of both traditions and cultures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".