MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048143005 · doi:10.1080/1359866x.2015.1020047

Pre-service educators and anti-oppressive pedagogy: interrupting and challenging LGBTQ oppression in schools

2015· article· en· W2048143005 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Mitton‐Kükner, Laura-Lee Kearns, Joanne Tompkins

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersSt. Francis Xavier University
KeywordsOppressionBachelorLesbianSpace (punctuation)PedagogyService (business)SociologyPower (physics)Focus groupGender studiesPsychologyPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are increasing calls for pre-service educators to be responsive and responsible for anti-homophobic education. This research builds on the ongoing efforts to integrate Positive Space training in our two-year Bachelor of Education programme. We found through a series of focus group and individual interviews that pre-service teachers were aware of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queering/Questioning (LGBTQ) oppression, witnessed it in schools, employed a range of strategies, but also experienced challenges due to power dynamics in schools, and may not have recognised the power of their interruptions. Our findings suggest that Positive Space training is valuable and necessary and needs to continue to be explicitly embedded in core courses so that all pre-service teachers, regardless of their discipline, develop the skills and attitudes necessary to be advocates for LGBTQ individuals.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Citations40
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia-Pacific Journal of Teacher EducationSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207