カナダの先住民族教育における脱植民地戦略 : ブリティッシュコロンビア州の学校教育を中心に
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to discuss how the Knowledge of the Canadian Indigenous peoples has been transmitted mainly through school education in British Columbia (BC). First, I point out that the purpose of teaching Indigenous languages and cultures is not political separation, but rather Indigenous peoples’survival in mainstream society. Second, I discuss the approval of Indigenous languages and Indigenous Studies as legitimate subjects, the integration of Indigenous contents into all subjects and the approval of an English subject developed based on Indigenous content, including epistemology, as a legitimate independent subject. Third, I discuss about types of higher education within the ambit of Indigenous Education: Indigenous Studies Departments in public universities, the teacher education system on Indigenous Languages and Cultures, other certificates or diplomas on Indigenous peoples granted by public universities in BC, and Indigenous-controlled Institutions in local Indigenous communities. Finally, I discuss about the transmission of Traditional Indigenous Knowledge in school education as well as communities. Based on the above discussions, I point out the importance of approving Ainu Studies courses as legitimate subjects, transmission on Ainu Puri（Ainu style of life and thinking）, self-determination in Ainu education by Ainu peoples, and support for and understanding of Ainu people and their initiatives by Japanese society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".