MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1586406879 · doi:10.14288/ce.v6i2.184366

Parental Rights, Professional Autonomy and Contested Pedagogy Under the Alberta Human Rights Act

2013· article· en· W1586406879 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dianne Gereluk, Marie Farrell, James Kent Donlevy, Peggy Patterson, James M. Brandon

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationAutonomyHuman rightsSociologyNoticePedagogyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Undersection 11.1 of The Alberta Human Rights Act (2009), teachers are now required to give prior written notice to parents when subject matter of religion, human sexuality, and sexual orientation are primarily and explicitly addressed in class. In light of this new legislation, the main intent of this initial one year research project was to examine the policies and procedures of one particular school district to investigate compliance with section 11.1 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. Specifically, we examined: To what extent has section 11.1 changed teachers’ pedagogical practices? As such, this paper has two primary objectives. First, we provide an overview of the background in the lead up to the legislation. Second, we report on the impact of this legislation on teachers’ pedagogical practices. We argue that the ways in which teachers have internalized the legislation has had varying effects on their teaching practice and their professional autonomy. This study will be expanded to consider the effects on curricular practice across the province.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.023
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207