MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133013446

Decolonizing pedagogical approaches to aboriginal literatures in Canada

2008· dissertation· W7133013446 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aubrey Jean Hanson

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2008
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurocentrismColonialismContext (archaeology)Reading (process)Postcolonialism (international relations)Decolonization
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis focuses on socially responsible strategies for teaching Aboriginal literatures in Canadian schools, particularly within Secondary level English courses. It articulates the need for a theorized methodology for reading as the basis of this pedagogical project, and argues that, within the context of colonial Canada, this methodology must be a decolonizing one. It outlines the fundamental components of a decolonizing methodology for reading, based on the following imperatives: rooting understanding in Aboriginality; valuing Aboriginal perspectives; challenging Eurocentrism and colonialism; maintaining a sense of reader responsibility; and challenging multiple forms of oppression. This project demonstrates a decolonizing methodology by examining Aboriginal texts by Beatrice Culleton Mosionier, Tomson Highway, Lee Maracle, and Chrystos. These examinations address such issues as colonial schooling in Canada, Aboriginal languages and their importance to Aboriginal cultures, and the possibilities offered by anti-colonialism feminism. Throughout, it raises considerations for educators pursuing an anti-colonial pedagogy through Aboriginal texts.

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)0.006
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0510.044
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights→French-language works237,207→