Bibliographic record
Abstract
What place might gayness have in education?Where will it arrive, and in what guise?Historically, in education, gayness has emerged as controversy: battles over sex education, performing plays that deal with gay issues, boys bringing boys to the prom, kindergarten students reading about lesbian mothers, and fears of gay teachers seducing their students all illustrate the ways gayness rests in an often antagonistic relationship to education.In these controversies, gayness is conceptualized as standing outside of education and as an interruption to the work of teaching and learning.To think about gayness in relation to education taxes the conceptual resources we have for making sense of how we learn.We have developed a whole range of strategies for keeping gayness out of education.Developmentally appropriate practice, the core curriculum, even diversity and religious tolerance become alibis for avoiding discussion of homosexuality.And controversy, which hovers so closely to gayness, serves as a defense against recognizing the presence of sexuality and gayness in the ordinary life of teaching and learning.To make a claim for gayness as ordinary and ubiquitous, as circulating through the halls of education, requires a step beyond controversy.Gayness must be a part of the everyday work of teaching and learning and it is this ordinariness that can ground an understanding of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered human rights.This article asks how our conceptualizations of gayness would shift if we saw sexuality as part of the ordinary work of teaching and learning; indeed if sexuality, in all its strange and unexpected manifestations, was seen as ordinary.To craft a more inclusive vision of education for LGBTQ children, youth and families, educators are faced with this formidable task of making a
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".