Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of conducting this study was to explore the thoughts, experiences and feelings of Aboriginal students within social work education, based on the findings of a literature review on the topic of Aboriginal content within social work education. Students were invited to participate because nothing in the literature indicated that their input had ever been sought as a means of bringing Aboriginal world views into social work education. The research project was conducted at three geographical sites in Ontario using the Aboriginal research methodology of storytelling circles. Study participants came from backgrounds of wonderful diversity in terms of age, Nations, personal family circumstances and work as helpers within their communities. Students supported the five themes as presented to them from the literature written by Aboriginal social work educators and practitioners. Participants were consistent in their assertion that Aboriginal world views must be incorporated into social work education for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students, and in their emphasis that this must include a specific focus on decolonization. Study participants contributed several creative and insightful suggestions on how to integrate these themes into the academy. Despite their often painful stories about their survival within oppressive, Eurocentric academies, they expressed kindness, generosity of spirit and hope for the future of social work with Aboriginal peoples. In so doing, they have identified significant points for journeying forward, which can be taken up by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal social work educators. Lastly, participants emphasized throughout the project that we must also turn our attention to the inclusive education of children in order to truly decolonize Canadian society. From this research project, I conclude that multiple ways of knowing must occur according to the terms of all participants and not only through conditions and decisions made by the dominant group within social work education. Inclusive education is about representation. My future work within the academy aims to move beyond critique to an exploration of the legitimacy of Aboriginal paradigms within educational frameworks. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
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 | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".