MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188436255 · doi:10.18357/ar.lallouzr.612015

Turn the Page, Hear Her Shout: Dissident Voices in the Journals of Female Secondary School Students and the Silence of their Male Counterparts

2015· article· en· W2188436255 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rachel Lallouz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Arbutus Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJournaling file systemSilenceNarrativePsychologyClass (philosophy)Resistance (ecology)Gender studiesQualitative researchPedagogySociologyLiteratureAestheticsArtSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates how a minority of female secondary school students in a Writing 12 class resisted internalization of gender stories by rewriting and subverting those same stories through the process of journaling. Journal material collected from five female students was analyzed using qualitative narrative analysis of quotes that demonstrate rewritten gender stories. The research examines how female students positioned the self as the storyteller, and by doing so, adopted an active role in reconstructing their narrative identities to include traits of strength and resilience. Journal material collected from three male students—the only consenting male students—revealed an absence of these students directly addressing the concept of gender through writing. The research suggests that for these male students, simply engaging in the project of journaling was a form of resistance against gender stories idealizing an noncompliant, less emotionally active male student and writer.

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)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Arbutus ReviewSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207