The Inadequate Recognition of Sexual Diversity by Canadian Schools: LGBT Advocacy and Its Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creating more inclusive schools has lagged significantly behind changes that formally recognize sexual diversity in human rights and family law, across all Canadian regions. Students still experience widespread harassment based on what are considered non-conforming sexual orientation and gender identity, and sexual minority teachers often remain closeted. Several school boards, for example in Toronto and Vancouver, have developed comprehensive LGBT-inclusive equity policies, but implementation remains uneven. Most provincial education ministries have been extremely reluctant to develop policies targeting exclusion or marginalization on these grounds. The impediments to change include the pressures on young people to adopt dominant gender norms, the extent to which questions of sexuality tap into large unresolved debates over the role of schooling, the continuing capacity of religious conservatives to mobilize opposition to LGBT-inclusive measures, the availability of schooling options for morally traditional parents, the unreadiness of most teachers to address questions of sexual diversity, and the modesty of resources available to LGBT activists in Canada.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".