How the acorn unfolds in education: Mapping the legal and normative orders that interact to inform First Nation youths' right to education through legal pluralism and critical legal pluralism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current education mandate for First Nations in Canada has been described as a “inexcusable educational-rights vacuum” for which First Nation students and communities pay a “heavy price”. To better gauge the effectiveness of the current education mandate, this study employed the socio-legal approaches of legal pluralism and critical legal pluralism and found that no participant felt that their right to education was fully actualized. From the perspective of First Nation students, their right to education necessarily includes: adequate funding for post-secondary education, learning from an Indigenized curriculum, and learning in an environment that is free from discrimination and racism. This study also found that the participants of the study situate themselves in a plurality of legal orderings. They draw on Treaties, international human rights laws, and First Nation laws to inform their perceptions on their right to education, even though these legal orderings and laws are not necessarily validated or recognized by Canada through official state law.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".