Creating Inclusive Space for Aboriginal Scholars and Scholarship in the Academy: Implications for Employment Equity Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Canadian universities report an under-representation of Aboriginal scholars in their professoriate. Employment equity policy seeks to redress the under-representation of marginalized groups in the Canadian workforce, including Aboriginal peoples. This article presents the findings of a case study which sought to examine, from the perspective of Aboriginal scholars, the under-representation of Aboriginal scholars in the Ontario professoriate, specifically, why Aboriginal scholars stay, or leave the academy. The study findings illustrate the need for employment equity policy to equitably promote the recruitment of Aboriginal scholars, and further, to support their retention through the valuation of Aboriginal scholarship. The study highlights the need for Canadian universities to embrace their role as societal "agents of change," and as part of their social justice mission, to promote diversification in the professoriate by creating inclusive space for Aboriginal scholars and scholarship in the academy.
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 | 0.036 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.073 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.051 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".