MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896662625 · doi:10.1080/00405841.2018.1536922

Elementary Teachers’ Experiences with LGBTQ-inclusive Education: Addressing Fears with Knowledge to Improve Confidence and Practices

2018· article· en· W2896662625 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elizabeth J. Meyer, Mary Quantz, Catherine Taylor, Tracey Peter

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory Into Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLesbianTransgenderQueerPedagogyPsychologySexual orientationSexual identityDiversity (politics)HomosexualityConversationSexual minoritySociologyHuman sexualitySocial psychologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents the findings from a national study on the experiences of educators with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) topics in elementary schools and recommendations for practice based in our experiences as classroom teachers and teacher educators. Using responses to open-ended questions that were part of a large-scale survey, we discuss the ways LGBTQ content is being included in PK-5 classrooms and the challenges and supports teachers experienced when introducing LGBTQ-related content or engaging in other visibility efforts and activities. These findings are placed in conversation with our experiences supporting educators preparing to do this work and inform our recommendations for practice. The importance of developing confidence and knowledge about gender and sexual diversity topics to address fear-based reasons for not engaging in this work are discussed, as well as ways to address these challenges for elementary educators.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.430 · 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

Citations36
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory Into PracticeSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207