Gender and sexuality diversity and schooling: progressive mothers speak out
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although social acceptance of gender and sexuality diversity is growing in Australian society, in schools, visibility and inclusion of knowledge pertaining to those who are gender- and/or sexuality-diverse, such as lesbians, gay men and transgender people, remain marginalised. This may be due, in part, to a belief that parents are opposed to such content inclusions in their children’s education; yet, virtually no Australian research supports this belief nor have parental perspectives on gender and sexuality diversity inclusion been specifically examined. This paper draws on a broader research study that examined New South Wales parents’ perceptions about the visibility of gender and sexuality diversity and the inclusion or exclusion of related content in school curriculum. It focuses on one particular focus group comprised of only mothers who lived in a specific enclave of Sydney known for its gender and sexuality diversity. The discussion highlights their awareness of gender and sexuality diversity and the dynamics surrounding it; and their perceptions of local school approaches to, and limitations around, gender and sexuality diversity in school curricula, policy and practices, despite potential support for it.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".