A systematic scoping review of physical education experiences from the perspective of LGBTQ+ students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite shifts towards inclusivity, physical education (PE) is still perceived as unwelcoming towards students who identify as sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+). A systematic scoping review was conducted to garner an enhanced understanding of the empirical literature exploring LGBTQ+ student experiences within PE. Studies were identified by searching eight electronic databases which produced 962 abstracts from which eight articles were eligible for inclusion. Data were then extracted, summarized, and thematically synthesized into a conceptual map. The majority of the articles reviewed relied on samples that were predominantly comprised of able-bodied white cisgender individuals, with only half of the articles involving adolescent participants. Across studies, the omnipresence of cis-heteronormativity in PE adversely influenced LGBTQ+ experiences through homophobic and transphobic practices. The qualitative studies included in this review highlighted the implicit and explicit gendering processes that work to gender students as well as physical activities. Although cis-heteronormativity and its resulting exclusive practices should continue to be challenged in policies, the experiences of current LGBTQ+ students within PE should be prioritized to inform and evaluate inclusive PE policies, curricula, and teacher training.
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 | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".