Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report describes the completed second stage of an investigation and analysis of the state of educational leadership, policy, and organization in northern Canadian schools. It presents and discusses the different perspectives held by constituents with respect to the goals and purposes of schooling, and the curriculum and language of instruction found in the schools. Two schools in northern Alberta, Moose River and Church Point, were selected for study; administrators, teachers, students, and community members were interviewed. Interview results show a lack of congruence between expectations of the local community and educators at the schools that are culturally based. One example involves school governance issues where the locus of power is determined by government regulations outside the community; this power structure does not address local community issues and needs, such as supporting local Aboriginal languages. There is a tendency to support the status quo and to provide what the educational system in the southern part of Canada describes as a suitable educational experience. Unfortunately, this orientation is Anglo-centric. Principals must attend not only to the voices of the professional and educational elite but also to the voices of those who are generally marginalized, dispossessed, and ignored by this system. (Contains 64 references.) (RT) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.825 | 0.701 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".