MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028432692

Equity in language programs: Revitalizing indigenous languages in secondary school in Anchorage, Alaska

2021· article· en· W7028432692 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUSF Scholarship Repository (University of San Francisco) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDiverse Interdisciplinary Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenous languageIndigenousFirst languageNative-language instructionLanguage revitalizationEquity (law)Language policyLanguage industryLanguage planning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Wherever there is a situation of domination and subordination between any two groups, whatever their color or religion, this will be reflected in the language relationship: one language dominating the other." —wa Thiong’o (2011, p. 244) Indigenous language and culture education efforts in Anchorage, Alaska are limited by omissions in the public school curriculum. One of the many reasons for this is that policy makers believe there is not sufficient demand for Alaska Native languages in public schools. Further there is a perceived lack of language teacher-leaders and experts to build programs for Alaska Native language instruction. This study used a quantitative survey of 80 high school students, Native and non-Native, to understand actual student’s interest in Indigenous languages and their perceptions of the benefits in knowing an Alaskan language. The study also did a qualitative analysis of data from interviews from seven Indigenous language expert participants to explore who is doing revitalization work, understand their perspectives, and gather their recommendations for culturally responsive program format and content.Quantitative data analysis from the 80 student surveys revealed; 1) both Native and non-Native students have a strong interest in Alaska Native language programs and 2) most students are unaware of the multiple cultural, academic, and employment benefits associated with Alaskan language study. The qualitative data from the Indigenous language experts generated three key findings: 1) The arts are foundational for indigenous curriculum, 2) Technology must be incorporated for language revitalization, and 3) Indigenous students require language and culture education for their formation of identity, pride, and world views. The study also confirmed that there is a strong community of language experts and teacher-leaders supporting Indigenous language revitalization work in Alaska, Oklahoma, and around the rest of the world. Tribal Critical Theory explains how the contemporary language and culture education structure in Anchorage, Alaska reflects the colonization goals of status quo in Euro-centric language programs, ongoing erasure of Native languages, and a hegemonic perspective on the value of Native languages. Many of Alaska’s Native languages and cultures are now in jeopardy of extinction; timing is crucial for language preservation and revitalization. Successful language revitalization models from places like Canada, Hawaii, and New Zealand offer language and culture program roadmaps for Anchorage public schools.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it