POLYAMOROUS TRIOS IN FAMILY LAW AND CANADIAN SCHOOLS WHAT IS NORMAL FOR STUDENTS IN TODAY’S CLASSROOM?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
"Culturally significant norms and acceptance play a role in what is considered ‘normal’ activities compared to pathology. Recent reports of domestic slavery have occurred in West Vancouver elite homes in British Columbia paralleling earlier accounts in Hong Kong where documented cases of international domestic servants have been mistreated. Confusing messages are portrayed to children with conflicting movies and stereotypes regarding sexual health and healthy work relationships. Agiliga (2013) contemplated if Black women could use BDSM as a way to regain sexual agency; while literature records poly relationships as evident in First People’s culture (TallBear, 2020) and Maori Indigenous story telling (Hutchings & Aspin, 2007). Religion is also a consideration for the acceptance of polygamy (Foster, 2010) and marital discipline (Deshotels et al. 2019); despite a 2014 court ruling in Britain, that “singled out spanking as an unacceptable BDSM activity” (Khan, 2020, p. 367) for unwedded couples. Khan (2020) notes that Family Law is a “sticky area”. In one comparison, Khan (2020) notes “The judge justified the branding of his (the husband’s) initials into his wife’s buttocks ‘because the participants were a wedded couple and the incident took place in the sanctified space of the ‘marital home’ (p. 366). This qualitative study asked stakeholders in the field of education to respond to questions regarding surveillance in schools on personal devices while at school and while using school electronic resources. Participants were asked questions related to their understanding of bring your own device (BYOD) policies at school and away from school as well as their understanding of inappropriate behaviour as it is defined by their school and school board. Various stakeholders responded to the questions from an accountability and personal responsibility perspective, noting a typology of “reporter” for each stakeholder group, noting students seldom reported on each other. Participants were further asked to reflect on their personal knowledge of privacy and personal devices through a background survey that asked stakeholders to select one or more options from a provided list (brand new, don’t know anything, still learning, feel comfortable using it in education settings, have questions, know a little, have more to learn, am an expect, help other people, other). Data collected during the study indicated surveillance is attributed to five themes: well-being, assessment, policy, security, punitive, with the majority of responses attributed to policy, security and punitive and one participant relating the use of surveillance for monitoring well-being and useful for student assessment."
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».