Voices of Teachers on School Violence and Gender in South African Urban Public Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the findings of a study conducted in Gauteng, South Africa. The main aim of the study was to examine how principals and educators experience and address violence in schools. This included investigating the gendered nature of school violence. The study used a qualitative research method, which drew upon individual and focus group interviews to collect data from the School Management Teams (SMTs), educators and the School Governing Bodies (SGBs parent component). Using a post-structural feminist view to understand the gendered nature of violence in the schools, the research findings show that school violence is a male and female phenomenon, although boys (young males) were seen as the main protagonists of school violence. Findings also revealed that, although female educators are sometimes victims of school violence, they use violence reduction strategies in their professional capacity as educators that any other professional could apply regardless of their gender. The strategies for eliminating violence in schools should not be gendered but should rather be all-encompassing and should take all factors into account that may play a role in causing violence.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".