MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132877144

GROUNDING IN INUIT WORLDVIEW: THE TRANSFORMATION OF TWO QIKIQTANI, NUNAVUT SCHOOLS

2024· dissertation· W7132877144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine Elizabeth Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommunity educationBilingual educationProcess (computing)Professional developmentWork (physics)MetisCommon ground
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inuit of Inuit Nunangat (Inuit regions of Canada) and Nunavummiut have continued to call for improvements to Inuit education. As such, documented accounts from community member perspectives and from school leader reflections would assist in Inuit education improvements. This unikkaaqatiginniq (storytelling) doctoral study grounded in Inuit worldview includes two processes: a community consultation process (Chapter 2) to determine the dissertation topic, which includes how community knowledge holders of Qikiqtarjuaq and Panniqtuuq/Pangnirtung, Nunavut want study done in their communities; and an examination (Chapters 3 and 4) of the Inuit language, culture, and identity-centred bilingual school program that supported students in whole-person development, in Inunnguqsajait (becoming able human beings) and bilingualism in two Qikiqtani (Baffin), Nunavut schools. This study was undertaken to respond to the gap in the literature of few documented examples from community member and school leader perspective. Community knowledge holders included some former students, parents, Elders, Community Education Council (CEC)/District Education Authority (DEA) members, staff members, community members of Qikiqtarjuaq and Panniqtuuq/Pangnirtung, Nunavut, a regional Director of School Services, and a regional Board of Education Director and are accompanied by some of my reflections as former principal/co-principal in the schools through historical documents. The two case studies (Chapters 3 and 4) explore the concepts of Inuit language, culture, and identity-centred bilingual school program through shared vision, program development and implementation and challenges thereof, while the consultation process (Chapter 2) explores community preferred ways of doing study through a Three Paper format, with an introduction and conclusion chapter to introduce the topics and to provide a summary of the findings and key learning.Findings show that the essential components of the Inuit language, culture, and identity-centred bilingual school program supported students in whole-person development, in Inunnguqsajait (becoming able people), and in developing bilingually. Some challenges identified by knowledge holders in the study were maintaining program change, lack of Inuit worldview resources, insufficient program funding, challenges of change implementation and the time required (Qikiqtarjuaq case study), for the Panniqtuuq case study challenges identified included lack of Inuit worldview resources, insufficient Spring Camp funding, school leader and staff turnover. Findings suggest a need for further study across Nunavut to build upon these findings and to determine how other Nunavut communities want study done, and to examine and share other community experiences in developing and implementing Inuuqatigiit schools (pre-creation of Nunavut) and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) schools (post-creation of Nunavut) through Inuit language, culture, and identity-centred bilingual school program. The findings also suggest a need to learn from community experiences of the past in supporting education program improvement in Nunavut and in celebrating what has and can be done in transforming Nunavut schools to be grounded in Inuit worldview. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓐᓂᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ (ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᑦ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᕘᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᐅᓯᒃᑲᓂᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᒻᒪᑦ, ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᖏᑕ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕋᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᑎᑦᑎᑲᓐᓂᓂᕐᒥᒃ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᑐᙵᕕᓕᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖓᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓚᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᑑᓐᓂᒃ: ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᑐᓴᕆᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ (ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖅ 2) ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᓕᒃ ᓘᑦᑖᙳᕈᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᑕᑭᔪᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ, ᐃᓚᖃᕐᒪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖅᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐸᓐᓂᖅᑑᒥ, ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᖁᔨᓯᒪᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᐅᔪᖅ (ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖅ 3 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 4-ᒥ) ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᓇᐅᓂᕐᒥᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᒻᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕕᒻᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᓗᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓱᐃᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑑᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ, ᐃᓄᙳᖅᓴᔭᐃᓂᖅ (ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᖅᓯᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᓕᐅᔫᓐᓂ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒥ, ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᕖᓐᓂ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖃᕈᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒥᒐᖅᓯᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᑦᓰᓐᓇᑯᓪᓗᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᒻᒥᐅᑕᐅᔪᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᖓᒍᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᒃᑕᐅᔪᒥᒃ. ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᐃᑦ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᖅᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒋᕙᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ, ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ, ᐃᓐᓇᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ, ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ, ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖅᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᐸᓐᓂᖅᑑᒥᓗ, ᓄᓇᕘᒥ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐊᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑎᐅᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᖑ\ᐊᖏᔪᖅᑳᖑᖃᑎᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᓂᕐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᑦ. ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔫᒃ (ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖅ 3 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 4-ᒥ) ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑭᓇᐅᓂᖓᓂ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᔾᔨᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᙳᐊᕐᓂᖅ, ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ, ᑐᓴᕋᓱᐊᕐᓂᖅᑕᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ (ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᖅ 2) ᕿᒥᕐᕈᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᒻᒥᐅᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᖃᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᓂ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᕐᓂᒃ, ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᖅᑲᕈᑎᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑦᑎᕙᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᐃᓪᓕᑎᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓕᓪᓗᐊᑕᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᓯᓗᓂ. ᖃᐅᔨᔭᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᑎᑦᑎᒻᒪᑕ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᓂᒃ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᓇᐅᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᔾᔨᓂᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᓕᒻᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᑦ ᐃᓗᐃᑦᑑᓗᓂ ᐃᓄᒃ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓᓂᑦ, ᐃᓄᙳᖅᓴᔭᐃᑦ (ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᓕᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᒃ), ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓗᓂ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ, ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔪᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔨᑕᕐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᒪᑯᐊ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᒃᓴᐅᔪᑦ, ᐊᒥᒐᖅᓯᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑭᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ, ᓈᒻᒪᙱᓗᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒥᒐᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ, ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᔅᓴᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕐᓂᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ (ᕿᑭᖅᑕᖅᔪᐊᕐᒥ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᔪᒥ), ᐸᓐᓂᖅᑑᒥᓕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᔪᑦ ᐊᒥᒐᖅᓯᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᖅᑕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᕋᒃᓴᐅᔪᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑭᔅᓱᓗᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᐱᕐᖏᖑᐊᖅᕕᒻᒧᑦ, ᓯᕗᓕᖅᑏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᐸᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᑲᓐᓂᖅᐳᑦ ᓱᓕ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᓕᒫᒥ ᐱᕈᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖁᔨᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᖓᒍᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᒥᖅᑳᕐᓗᓂᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖏᓐᓂ (ᓄᓇᕘᖅᑖᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ) ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᑐᖃᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᑖᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ) ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓᑎᒍᑦ, ᐃᓕᖅᑯᓯᖓᑎᒍᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᓇᐅᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᒪᕐᕉᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂ. ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔨᑲᓐᓂᖅᐳᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᖅᑲᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᐃᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕋᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐱᐅᓯᒃᑲᓂᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᕕᐊᓲᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᑐᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓱᓕ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᙵᕕᖃᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑕᐅᑐᑦᑕᖓᒍᑦ.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0450.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.394 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→