MIND THE GAP\nGreenland: Is there a gap between educational goals of the government and the aspirations of young people in Narsaq?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mind the gap is a thesis based on fieldwork conducted in Narsaq, Greenland in July 2013 and compares the rationale behind the government’s high priority to increase educational standards of the population with the reluctance of young people in Narsaq to answer that call. Young people in Narsaq, like the population of rest of Greenland are going through a period of great changes, both environmentally and politically. This thesis examines how these changes will affect the young people in Narsaq and their educational prospects and aspirations.\nThe findings of this study are in line with a mixture of Alan Barnard’s general hypothesis on foraging mode of thought and Merete Watt Boolsen’s social inheritance theory. Some of the findings can be explained by applying Barnard’s hypothesis on foraging mode of thought as there is still a strong sense of the traditional life style of Inuit hunter and gatherers among Greenlanders even if they now live in towns. And Merete Wall Boolsen’s theory of social inheritance helps explain how hard it is to go against your culture when it comes to education, as the parents of many young people in Narsaq lack higher education and there are few positive role models in the area who do.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".