School Board Liability for Student-Peer Harassment and Discrimination: "Deliberate Indifference" and Beyond?.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
cases currently being investigated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. One such case involves a seemingly spontaneous single incident of alleged student-peer or “student-onstudent” discrimination. It arose out of an accident that occurred during a lunch-time soccer game on an elementary school’s playground. The game was not part of an intramural league or any “official” school-organized activity; it was simply a matter of some children playing soccer during the lunch hour. There was an appropriate number of teachers on yard duty supervising all of the children, but the monitors were not specifically refereeing or coaching the game. The playground at the school in question was too small to allow all interested students to play at the same time, and thus a compromise rotating schedule had been worked out whereby different grades had the use of the soccer field on different days. On the day in question, it was the grade four children’s turn. However, the complainant, a grade three boy (who was larger in physical stature than both his classmates and many of the older children), decided to “sneak in” and join the grade four game. At one point, the complainant and one of the older boys each darted for the soccer ball, collided together, and the complainant was knocked to the ground where he lay injured and crying in pain. Two first aid-trained teachers attended to the boy, the ambulance was called and ultimately, on the paramedic’s advice, the boy was sent home with a neighbour because the single parent-mother could not be reached at any one of the three emergency contact phone numbers on
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".