The Ontario Anti-Bullying Framework and Its Potential Impact on Indigenous Students in Northern Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical reflection of the term 'bullying' and the behaviours that define the term are rarely criticized in mainstream society. In 2012, the Ontario anti-bullying framework came into effect under the Education Act. The underlying message of the framework is that bullying behaviour is not tolerated, thus the buy-in message for all Ontarians is that all students are protected in school. This is not always the case for Indigenous students. My research and dissertation explore how northern educators understand the Ontario anti-bullying framework policies and how the framework impacts colonial relationships. The sample in this study consists of 12 educators (10 teachers, 1 vice-principal and 1 principal) working in northern Ontario. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data were analyzed through a multi-grounded theoretical approach. The participants shared their personal background, their understanding of Indigenous history and politics, and their understanding of the anti-bullying framework. Many themes emerged from examination of the data. The theme of minimizing serious behaviour as simply 'bullying' is of particular importance. This study found that the term 'bullying' may be used by teachers or administrators to minimize instances or severity of violence, harassment and racism (against Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth). Furthermore, even though participants appreciated Indigenous history and culture, they did not apply that knowledge in their approach to bullying but instead relied on the mainstream definition of bullying. The cumulative impact suggests a new theoretical insight — reliance on the mainstream discourse of bullying may reproduce settler colonial foundations of the education system.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".