Reconciliation of Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth through leadership programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reconciliation in Canada has been moved to the forefront with the recent publication of the \nfindings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Youth can play a significant role in \nachieving reconciliation in Canada. In the following research, I propose that building balanced \nrelationships during adolescence can counteract the disparity between Indigenous and \nnon-Indigenous youth and lead to reconciliation. These relationships can be encouraged through \ncreating shared experiences in leadership programs that include forums for discussions and \ncooperative development. Over a five-year period, youth from a remote Northern Ontario First \nNation reserve have participated in two-week leadership training programs at a resident summer \ncamp in central Ontario. I was motivated by the benefits of the ensuing relationships between the \nIndigenous and non-Indigenous youth, which led to this instrumental case study of the \nreconciliation potential of camps. I explored the outcomes of the interactions between the youth \nand staff at the camp. The methodology for this research includes a literature review and \ncollecting data in interviews with the participants. Documents from the camp were analyzed to \nunderstand the values, vision and approach of the camp. The data was analyzed and five main \nareas became evident and were studied: values, goals, relationships, development and \ncommunity. The safe environment carefully created at the camp led to relationship building \nbetween Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants and the non-Indigenous participants grew \nsomewhat in their understanding and acknowledgement of Indigenous issues. As this \ninstrumental case study was based on a small sample and the program was not set up to \nintentionally address reconciliation, the impact was limited. With a more direct attempt, there is \npotential for reconciliation in youth camp programs. By creating experiences where youth can \ninteract and build relationships, they can build a better understanding of each other and thus \ncreate social solidarity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".