MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136569365 · doi:10.17161/gjcpp.v10i3.20688

Stakeholder Perspectives on Ontario's Bill 13: A Macrosystem-level Intervention Supporting Gay-Straight Alliances and Other Initiatives Affirming LGBT Youth

2019· article· en· W3136569365 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Renato M. Liboro, Robb Travers, Ketan Shankandass

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Community Psychology Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitute of Gender and HealthUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Gender studiesStakeholderSociologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have argued for the positive impact education legislation can have as a macrosystem-level intervention on the implementation of microsystem- and mesosystem-level interventions (e.g., Gay-Straight Alliances) empirically documented to support sexual and gender minority students. This paper presents the findings of a qualitative Community-Based Research study that explored the perspectives of advocates for LGBT students from Waterloo Region, Ontario, Canada, on the impact of Bill 13; a bill purportedly proposed to address the needs of minority youth in publicly-funded schools. This paper emphasizes the value of legislation that is able to both explicitly mandate the implementation of LGBT-affirming initiatives empirically recognized to promote student mental health, and provide flexibility for advocates to develop new initiatives that will meet the specific needs of their minority students.

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)0.008
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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0290.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Community Psychology PracticeSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207