MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540518022 · doi:10.32316/hse/rhe.v28i2.4469

Educational Malpractice? Human Rights, Censorship, and the LGBTQ+ Community in Ontario’s Health and Physical Education Curriculum

2016· article· en· W2540518022 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Brent Brenyo

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Studies in Education / Revue d histoire de l éducation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDoping in Sports
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMinistère de l’Éducation, Gouvernement de l’Ontario
KeywordsCurriculumPolitical scienceOpposition (politics)Inclusion (mineral)HumanitiesCensorshipCharterHuman rightsPoliticsSociologyGender studiesPublic administrationLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The announcement of a new Health and Physical Education curriculum in 2010 by the Liberal McGuinty government resulted in considerable controversy in Ontario. Key religious groups, as well as socially and politically conservative groups, opposed the inclusion of queer-positive content in public education. This opposition ultimately led to the shelving of the proposed curriculum. However, under the Liberal Wynne government, a version similar to the original 2010 curriculum has been taught in schools since September 2015. This paper examines the struggle since the 1960s for curricular inclusiveness of the LGBTQ+ community in the Health and Physical Education curriculum document, and the arguments that have been used to censor the LGBTQ+ community. Ultimately, it was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code that prevented censorship in education. Human rights legislation was used to uphold civil rights in both the Catholic and public school systems and rose above the political decision-making that had censored the LGBTQ+ community. RÉSUMÉ L’annonce d’un nouveau programme d’études en santé et en éducation physique, en 2010, par le gouvernement libéral McGuinty provoqua une énorme controverse en Ontario. Des groupes religieux fondamentalistes ainsi que des organismes sociopolitiques conservateurs se sont opposés à l’inclusion de contenu sur l’homosexualité dans les programmes d’enseigne- ment public. Cette opposition conduisit à une mise au rancart du programme. Cependant, sous le gouvernement libéral Wynn, une version similaire au programme original est enseignée dans les écoles depuis septembre 2015. Cette étude s’intéresse à la lutte—en marche depuis les années 1960—pour l’inclusion des membres de la communauté des LGBTQ+ dans les programmes d’études en santé et en éducation physique, ainsi qu’aux arguments utilisés pour censurer cette collectivité. Finalement, ce fut la Charte des droits et libertés et le Code des droits de la personne de l’Ontario qui empêchèrent la censure en éducation. On eut recours à la législation sur les droits de la personne pour soutenir les droits civils autant dans le système des écoles catholiques que dans celui des écoles publiques et supplanter les objections politiques qui censuraient les LGBTQ+.

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)0.011
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0220.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical Studies in Education / Revue d histoire de l éducationSame topicDoping in SportsFrench-language works237,207