Analysis of program delivery services in First Nations, federal and provincial schools in Northwestern Ontario / by Patrick Brady
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares federal, provincial and First Nations schools? delivery of specific \neducational services to Native students in Northwestern Ontario. Areas of comparison include \nthose which the Indian Education Paper Phase One (INAC, 1982) regarded as "determinants \nof program quality" (p. 20): (a) curriculum and standards, (b) staffing, (c) staff support and \nsupervision, and (d) student support services. \nData was acquired through the use of a survey questionnaire, structured interviews, and \ndocument analysis. The primary research instrument, the survey questionnaire, was \ndistributed to 37 public and separate boards of education, 28 First Nations schools, and 7 \nfederal schools. In addition to the questionnaire structured interviews were conducted with \nthe Assistant District Superintendent of Education for an Indian and Northern Affairs Canada \nadministrative district, as well as with a Superintendent of Education for an urban separate \nschool board in the region. Furthermore, a number of documents provided by federal, \nprovincial and First Nations agencies concerned with education in general, and Native \neducation in particular, were analyzed. \nThe results of the study indicate that all three educational systems have programs in place \nto provide the above educational services to the Native students enrolled in their schools. \nThere are, however, significant differences among the systems in the manner in which these \nservices are implemented. Differences were found in the provision of a Native cultural \ncomponent in the curriculum, the professional qualifications required of teaching staff, the \nemployment benefit packages provided to educational employees, the nature of supervisory \nrelations, and the provision of student support services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".