Representations of Mohawk & native histories in high school textbooks : a comparative analysis of English-language & Mohawk textbooks in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study is a qualitative, explorative analysis of historical discourses used in education, borrowing theoretical and methodological principles from critical discourse analysis, conflict theory, critical pedagogy, and multicultural education. From a concern with socio-political relations and education, the overall research objective is to identify and articulate differences between Native and non-Native approaches to secondary level education about the history of Native peoples in Quebec and Canada. In addition to the frameworks of critical discourse analysis and conflict theory, this research is also grounded in the theoretical frameworks advanced by Native scholars and postmodern theorists concerned with methodological and epistemological issues affecting Native historiography and social science research. The analysis compares the Mohawk historical discourses in the Kahnawake Survival School's Seven Generations text, with those in Diverse Pasts , the English-language text approved for Secondary IV history education in the province of Quebec. The analysis points to the importance of discourses on sovereignty, nationhood and territory within Seven Generations , as well as explanations of the basis and rationale for the claims of the Mohawk and other Native nations in North America. The discourses on Mohawk, Iroquois and Native peoples---particularly with respect to sovereignty, nationhood and territory---are analyzed in each text to compare how they are represented and the implications of those representations for the overall education of both Mohawk and non-Native youth in Quebec.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".