Decolonizing the contact hypothesis: A critical interpretation of settler youthsâ experiences of immersion in Indigenous communities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study explores non-Indigenous youths’ experiences of cultural immersion in Indigenous communities in Canada. This research acknowledges and situates itself in the socio-political context of Aboriginal-Settler relations, drawing upon historical and recent impediments to these relations, with an emphasis on continued colonial injustices to Indigenous communities. As such, a critical post-colonial emancipatory paradigm is adopted in understanding the theoretical framework of the contact hypothesis. In this study, two groups of youth composed of undergraduate university students participated in a series of focus groups and interviews, while keeping journals about their experiences in an Indigenous community-immersion program. Participants’ experiences of immersion benefitted their relationship to Indigenous community through the personal connections they formed with the community and the heightened awareness they developed related to diversity among Indigenous communities and the challenges facing their hosts. Findings suggest potential areas of social intervention that could ameliorate relations and foster intercultural understanding, while also highlighting critical considerations for intercontact theory. Furthermore, it is proposed that the contact hypothesis can, ironically enough, be used to decolonize Canadian youth.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".