MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295546540 · doi:10.7202/1036110ar

Tensions Between Teaching Sexuality Education and Neoliberal Policy Reform in Quebec’s Professional Competencies for Beginning Teachers

2016· article· en· W2295546540 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dan Parker, Robert McGray

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l éducation de McGill · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualitySexuality educationAccountabilityMandateArgument (complex analysis)PedagogyTeacher educationNeoliberalism (international relations)Professional developmentSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceGender studiesSex educationSocial scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research draws into question the effects that neoliberal policy reforms — with an emphasis on individual and measurable “competencies” — has on new teachers teaching sexuality education in Quebec. While we examine professional competencies that teachers can use to define their mandate for teaching sexuality education as a beginning professional, we also detail the ways in which the competencies constrain pedagogical practice. Our argument is that while there are avenues for teachers to use the professional competencies for sexuality education, neoliberal reforms atomize teachers in a search for accountability. As a result, for fear of generating controversy, potentially contentious issues like sexuality education are not readily addressed. This atomization restricts both teachers and the field — the policy circumscribes sexuality education as personal rather than cultural. As such, we are left impotent to address cultural issues of sexuality education.

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)0.009
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.337
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l éducation de McGillSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207