Common, distinct and differing perspectives on the education of boys: an analysis of contributions to the 2000 Federal Government Inquiry into the Education of Boys
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policy making and practice for gender in schools is undergoing substantial change as the focus has shifted in recent years from girls to boys. It has been argued that social policy makers in all fields need evidence from a variety of sources to make informed decisions about social policy and program implementation. There should be ways of characterising, comparing and contrasting differing perspectives from the public, the media, practitioners and researchers so that their similarities and differences can be laid open for inspection and therefore provide broad, deep and useful information to policy makers and implementers. A relatively new approach to reviewing and synthesising literature has been claimed to have the potential to provide more useful information to social policy makers about 'what works' than traditional methods of reviewing literature. It is an 'argument catalogue' developed by the Canadian Network for Knowledge Utilisation. This paper describes a study examining a sample of submissions to The Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Education and Training Inquiry into the Education of Boys. A comparative analysis of these submissions, which represent views from all interested sectors, including individual parents and teachers, parent bodies, teacher professional bodies and unions, government departments, and researchers, has the potential to significantly inform current discussions of boys' education and attempts to reform gender equity policy. The paper outlines the methodology of developing an argument catalogue which synthesises and codes the arguments contained in a sample of submissions to the Inquiry into the Education of Boys. It offers the preliminary findings from utilising this approach as one way of dealing with the complexities facing research on policy and practice in this highly contested field.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it