Investigating an antiracism policy: The case of an Ontario school board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How are the issues of racism, antiracism and the antiracism policy development process understood and discussed at the school board level? What is the relationship between antiracism policy makers' personal experiences of racism and their involvement in the antiracism policy process? How do antiracism policy makers' understandings of racism and antiracism affect their participation in the antiracism policy process? This case study uses a humanistic and narrative mode of inquiry to examine the preceding questions. This particular mode of inquiry emphasizes (a) the role of the individual in the organization and in the antiracism policy making process, in particular, (b) how the individual affects the way in which organizations work; (c) and the existence of contested meanings and understandings of how to define the theoretical aspects of antiracism approaches and the idea of race and racialization as lived experience. Seven individuals who participated in the Ontario School Board (OSB) antiracism policy process were interviewed and asked to discuss their personal understandings of racism, antiracism and the antiracism policy development process. Findings indicate that (a) there are underlying racialized assumptions that play a formative role in the OSB antiracism and ethnocultural equity policy development process, (b) participation in the policy process is often motivated by the participant's personal experiences and interests, (c) and that organizational structures may simultaneously foster and hinder the creation and subsequent enactment of antiracism policy. Analyzing participant understandings of racism, antiracism, and the antiracism policy development process raises awareness of the complex nature of social, organizational and to a lesser extent, micro- and macro-political conditions that are central to antiracism policy development and implementation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.063 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".