Black Teachers’ Ontological Positioning: The Transformative Power of Critical Embodied Relationality in Education in Support of Black Students’ Achievement and Well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The achievement gap and well-being disparities for Black students persist in schooling. In education, interconnected systemic factors including cultural biases, discipline disparities, inequitable access to resources, and curriculum bias impact Black students’ well-being and achievement. Theoretical frameworks that center on Black students’ well-being need to undergird educational discourse, policies, and practices. This paper concentrates on the role of the Black teacher in fostering the well-being and academic achievement of Black students. The focus on Black teachers contributes to the ongoing discourse in equity, inclusivity, representation, and cultural affirmation. From narrative interviews, this paper outlines critically conscious Black teachers’ experiences working to improve the well-being and achievement of Black students in Ontario. The theoretical framework in this study draws from the merging of critical race and critical theory of love in education, towards a proposed framework of Critical Embodied Relationality. This new framework seeks to promote healing and repair through understanding the impact of racial stress, centering Black ways of being, and building critical relational responsiveness with Black students to address racial inequities in education. From this perspective, this dissertation critiques White-centric ideologies and practices that effectively silence, exclude, and oppress Black ways of thinking, being, and doing. It offers recommendations to reshape educational policies and practices to help Black students feel safer and more supported in their schooling journey. This research paper will contribute to a deeper understanding of the lives of Black teachers’ and their practices supporting Black students' needs.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".