MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7049287458

Northern perspectives on board Students on Ice, and Beyond: A report on the 2016 Expedition

2017· other· en· W7049287458 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircumpolar starExperiential learningContext (archaeology)ArcticPhonePositive Youth Development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Executive Summary: \nThis research is focused on the participation of Northern students in the youth program called Students on Ice (SOI). SOI is a non-profit foundation based in Gatineau, Quebec that takes youth ages 14-24 from around the world on ship-based educational expeditions to the Polar Regions. Deeply embedded in the education program and expedition experience are science education, the spirit of exploration, experiential learning, and youth leadership development. A growing number of youth and adults from the circumpolar regions (Alaska, Canada [Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nunavik/Northern Quebec, Nunatsiavut/Labrador] and Greenland) participate in SOI each year. SOI continues to make program changes to better respond to and include Northerners. \nIn the context of this unique youth experience, this research asks: \n1. What dimensions of the SOI experience (before, during and after) have the most significant impacts on Northern youth and educators, especially in terms of (but not limited to): \na. supporting personal growth, education and leadership skills? \nb. encouraging engagement with and ongoing dialogue regarding important Arctic issues, such as (but \nnot limited to) climate change? \n2. What dimensions of the SOI experience best facilitate learning from the perspectives of Northerners about \nthe North? \n3. Based on the experiences and perspectives of Northerners, how can SOI improve its programs to increase \nresponsiveness to Northern peoples and communities? \nThe research was conducted on the 2016 Arctic expedition, involving multiple methods: participant observation, pre-expedition and end-of-expedition workshops, one-on-one interviews with staff members, small group interviews with students, one-on-one interviews by phone after the expedition with students, and analysis of documents such as feedback forms and social media postings. \nThis report offers a detailed account of the Northern youth experience on SOI, and the integration of Northern perspectives during the program, from my own perspective as well as those of students and staff. As a partially ethnographic project, it attempts to give descriptive insight into how SOI works and how being part of SOI affects participants. As a partially evaluative project, this report summarizes 54 suggestions for improvements or initiatives that should be continued. In general, the improvements that Northern youth could benefit from consist of ongoing efforts to help them express themselves (including their fears and challenges), discuss difficult topics relevant to their communities, set goals and realize those goals during and after the expedition. \nNorthern youth were greatly affected by: the Northern student pre-program; becoming proud “Arctic Ambassadors”; relationships with Inuit and non-Indigenous Northern staff members; visiting the abandoned village of Hebron; going through the process of leaving home, becoming comfortable away and then returning; participating in experiential environmental education; and, the opportunity to take risks. I found that Northern perspectives were made a central part of SOI’s educational program by: having as many Northern youth and adults on board as possible; respect shown to Northern cultures by SOI staff; integration of Northern perspectives throughout the program; and, having personal encounters with places that represent an Arctic homeland. \nI gratefully acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for providing my post- doctoral research salary, and Students on Ice for covering the costs of my travel on the expedition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→