MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167101009 · doi:10.7202/1009172ar

The Perils of Being a Male Primary/Junior Teacher: Vulnerability and accusations of inappropriate contact with students

2012· article· en· W2167101009 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Michael Parr, Douglas Gosse

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l éducation de McGill · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
FundersNorthern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation
KeywordsEconomic shortageContext (archaeology)Vulnerability (computing)PsychologyPerceptionMedical educationSchool teachersPedagogyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a perceived shortage of male teachers in education, particularly at the primary/junior (P/J) level where male teachers in Canada account for a dwindling minority. Included among the many factors inhibiting males from becoming P/J teachers are perceptions that males might be unduly vulnerable to false accusations of inappropriate conduct with pupils, frequently of a sexual nature. This paper highlights findings of research exploring the experiences of male P/J teachers in Ontario. Results of an online survey completed by 223 male P/J teachers are discussed; 28 of these teachers reported they had been suspected of having had inappropriate contact with pupils and wrote online comments outlining their experience. The findings are discussed in the context of what it means to be a male assuming a non-traditional role of working with young children in today’s milieu.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l éducation de McGillSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207