MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010618230 · doi:10.1080/10476210.2014.889672

Teaching about queer families: surveillance, censorship, and the schooling of sexualities

2014· article· en· W2010618230 on OpenAlexaff
W. Cumming-Potvin, Wayne Martino

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteronormativityQueerHeterosexismSexual identityHomosexualityHuman sexualityContext (archaeology)Queer theorySexual orientationSociologyCensorshipIdentity (music)Gender studiesPsychologyTransgenderPoliticsSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate primary school teachers’ reflections on addressing the topic of same-sex families and relationships in their classrooms. Informed by queer theoretical and Foucauldian analytic approaches, we examine teachers’ potential use of texts, such as picture storybooks, which introduce representations of same-sex relationships and desire. By employing a case-study approach, our aim is to provide insights into the pedagogical decisions and the heteronormative conditions under which three teachers in the Australian context attempt to deal with the topic of same-sex families/relationships. Attention is drawn to the regulatory surveillance of the parental gaze and the silencing and marginalization of sexual identity issues in order to illuminate the ways in which the micro politics of teaching about queer families and relationships are inextricably linked to broader macro processes governing the institutionalizing influences of heteronormativity, heterosexism and homonegativity. Implications for teacher education are outlined.

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)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.050
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeaching EducationSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207