The meaning of aboriginal control of education under current self-government agreements in Canadá
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND)-imposed band-council governance at the community level aligns with the seductive delusion popularized and given credence by Indian Control of Indian Education (ICIE) (National Indian Brotherhood, 1972/1984) that “Indian control” is synonymous with “local control,” a belief that has taken on mythic proportions over the years despite the paradox that most First-Nations are too small ever to operate an “education system” in any meaningful sense. This paper reviews the meaning and content of various aboriginal self-government discourses that have emerged over the last 30 years. Based on a detailed policy-theme analysis of policy papers, reports, and various self-governance agreements on this issue of First Nations control of education, this paper presents a network of interlocking concepts and models that provides a coherent and defensible understanding of the current state of aboriginal rights to control of education while mapping various forms of institutional arrangements or internal principles of organization for self-determination that have emerged over time in discourse on aboriginal rights and education in Canada.How to reference this article: Paquette, Jerald y Gerald Fallon, “Significado del control aborigen de la educación bajo los actuales acuerdos de autogobierno en Canadá”, traducido por Diego García, Revista Educación y Pedagogía, Medellín, Universidad de Antioquia, Facultad de Educación, vol. 22, núm. 58, septiembre-diciembre, 2010, pp. 193-212.Received: junio 2010Accepted: junio 2010
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".