Complexity in restorative justice education circles: Power and privilege in voicing perspectives about sexual health, identities, and relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restorative justice pedagogies, such as dialogue or peacemaking circles, allow students to learn how to share and listen with peers, set boundaries for moral dialogue, and engage constructively with each other’s perspectives. This study is part of a larger project focused on teachers’ professional development and circle implementation. The focus of this article is on one teacher’s approach to using circles in teaching her intermediate health curriculum unit, situated in a school with a strong restorative justice initiative. In this restorative classroom, dialogue was integrated into regularly enacted academic as well as interpersonal curriculum; this interrupted, or at times reaffirmed, the status quo. Data includes classroom observations, professional development observations, teacher and student interviews, and a reflective researcher journal. Dialogue enacted in this classroom illustrated moral issues students grappled with, relating to sexual health, inclusive sexual identities, and sociocultural relationships. Results illustrated how the teacher’s pedagogical choices transmitted values and shaped opportunities for critical dialogue, and that students’ social and cultural capital impacted how certain topics were discussed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".