MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070510332

Pilimmaksarniq: working together for the common good in science curriculum development and delivery in Nunavut

2009· article· en· W7070510332 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumCurriculum developmentProcess (computing)Foundation (evidence)Common groundProfessional developmentCommunity development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article outlines the practices informing and the preliminary outcomes derived from these practices in a 5-year school community science development project in three schools in the Qikiqtani (Baffin Island) region of Nunavut. The development process attempts to apply the guiding principles of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) to the improvement of science curriculum delivery in a manner that honors the knowledge, principles, and values the communities regard as integral to who and what they are. A basic foundation of IQ is the ground rules, customs, and the right way of doing things for Inuit. For this reason, the article outlines the processes guiding and informing the development process. Particular attention is devoted to the development of a quantitative instrument available in both Inuktitut and English that is used to inform school community discussion and monitor the degree of success in the development process. Outcomes of the initial stages of the project are discussed and implications of these outcomes for renegotiating future activity are considered.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University)Same topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207