Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010, Ontario’s Ministry of Education introduced a revised Health and Physical Education (H&PE) curriculum that promised to be a vital health promotion initiative. Yet, after a minority conservative backlash, the Ontario government withdrew the sexual health sections from the elementary school curriculum, reverting it back to its 1998 content. This study is a content analysis, informed by queer theory and institutional ethnography, of the current and proposed H&PE documents, with a focus on the sex education component. This research aims to examine i) the specific differences between the new and old H&PE documents with respect to referencing and delivering sex education, and more specifically sex education on queer/trans* issues; and ii) the potential social exclusion that the absence of queer/trans* curriculum content imposes on youth. The findings demonstrate that evidence-informed policy development cannot always overcome political power imbalances, such as those created by the socially constructed ideology of heteronormativity. As the Ontario government prepares to implement the reformed curriculum, this study provides insight into its controversial history and the complexities of policy development—insights that may extend beyond this moment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.013 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".