MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125589068 · doi:10.24908/eoe-ese-rse.v5i0.641

Crossing the Line: Homophobic Speech and Public School Teachers

2008· article· en· W2125589068 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Paul Clarke, Bruce MacDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterSexual orientationDutyFreedom of expressionLawPolitical scienceHomosexualitySet (abstract data type)EnforcementConstitutional rightPosition (finance)SociologyHuman rightsPsychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceBusinessConstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of a teacher’s expressed homophobic views outside the classroom and how those can be taken to affect his position as a teacher in a public school system has recently come up in the Kempling case. The case raises a host of educational and legal questions. In this article, we examine the competing constitutional claims relating to liberty and equality. On one hand, the teacher maintained that his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, set out respectively under ss. 2(a) and 2(b) of the Charter, allowed him to make his controversial, public comments. On the other hand, the equality rights guaranteed under s. 15 of the Charter protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We argue that the suspension of Mr. Kempling by the British Columbia College of Teachers was necessary to uphold the equality rights and interests of gays and lesbians as well as to protect the integrity of the teacher's duty to act as both an educator and a role model.

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)0.014
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.030
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207