Examining strategies to better represent Inuit culture and modes of learning in education: case study of Ulukhaktok, NWT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a longstanding desire among Inuit and some northern educators to better integrate Inuit culture and modes of learning in education. At present, efforts to include Inuit culture in education can be described as ad hoc or add-ons to a Euro-North American schooling system, which puts many Inuit in internal conflict trying to live according to two value systems that in some ways contradict themselves. This thesis reports on research conducted with Inuit in the Canadian Arctic to identify what aspects of culture and modes of learning Inuit desire to have included in education beyond those identified a priori by non-Inuit educators. A conceptual framework for the cultural negotiation of Indigenous education is empirically applied in a case study of Ulukhaktok, NWT to identify what Inuit think young people should learn, how they should learn it, where they should learn it and from who, and why it is important for them to learn it. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews (n=31), free-lists and participant observation. Findings show that Inuit desire to have subsistence knowledge, skills and values, and understanding of the local environment included in education, which not only builds competence in subsistence but also provides students with capacity to cope with challenges in the modern world. This involves on-the-land hands-on learning with a skilled person and/or family member. Inuit perceive school as a place for learning and the findings identify opportunities to negotiate this space to better integrate Inuit culture and modes of learning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".