Intercultural education and the inclusion of LGBTTIQ people in Ontario schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have existed in society for centuries, from an historical perspective the gay civil rights timeline is fairly recent, with significant changes seen in the last decade in Canada. Internationally, Denmark recognized same-sex partnerships in 1989, but only from 2005 to 2010 did Spain, Canada, New Zealand and California follow suit. Unfortunately only as recently as 2009, and still being revisited, a private member proposes a Bill to hang homosexuals in Uganda. Also, anti-gay laws were passed before the Sochi Olympics in Russia in 2013. This timeline is significant to help us understand why there is only recent, within the last twenty years, scholarly literature that specifically pertains to Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Two Spirited Intersex Queer (LGBTTIQ). This also sheds light on a global and greater need to understand and share strategies that may have a perceived positive impact in overcoming barriers in LGBTTIQ education to create a culture of inclusion and a true democratic society where all voices can participate and be heard. Multicultural education and intercultural education are two distinct concepts which interrelate as a mechanism to respond to the interdependence of growing diverse populations. From the perspective of an educator, this paper will explore some of the tenets of multicultural education and intercultural education; both the possibilities and limitations, in promoting the inclusion of LGBTQQ in the current educational system in Ontario, Canada. It is only by exploring these concepts and shedding light on issues of LGBTTIQ, that we begin the dialogue on how to maximise the participation of LGBTTIQ in our classrooms and in our society.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".