Mapping our Journeys: Art-based Testimonios and Pláticas of Latine Student Success in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latine individuals, those of Abya Yala/Latin American descent, are one of Canada’s fastest growing immigrant populations; yet they face inequities that limit their post-secondary opportunities and success. Research on Latine post-secondary students in Canada is most often analyzed through a deficit lens that view Latine students and their communities as lacking capital, motivation, and knowledge to succeed academically. The purpose of this qualitative art-based study is to expand the limited research of Latine students in higher education and identify the conditions needed to cultivate their student success. Informed by Latino Critical Race Theory and Chicana/Latina Feminism, this study is talking back (hooks, 1989) to deficit frameworks to illuminate the ways that Latine students navigate and journey to and through post-secondary education. My research study asked: 1) How do Latine students navigate challenges during their post-secondary experience? 2) What supports do Latine students access to cultivate their success? and 3) How do Latine students define success in their post-secondary? I utilized testimonios, journey mapping, and pláticas to understand the experiences of 20 Latine students in Ontario, Canada. The triangulation of the data demonstrates the complexities and empowerment of individual and collective experiences and offers a holistic view of student success. The analysis illuminates how post-secondary institutions are providing minimal supports to Latine students. In response, Latine students navigate institutional and structural barriers to persist in their studies, leverage their Latine cultural identity to find community, create and foster community spaces to find belonging, and redefine their own version of success. These findings urge higher education institutions to act on their equity and inclusion commitments to address inequities faced by Latine students. Specifically, my findings illustrate the importance of training student affairs professionals, enhancing culturally relevant services and programs, infusing culturally relevant curriculum in all disciplines, and hiring of Latine faculty.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".