MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389074132 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v68i1.70273

Creating and Sustaining Safe and Inclusive Spaces for LGBTQ Youth: An Exploratory Investigation of the Role of Educational Professionals

2022· article· en· W4389074132 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Andrew Luceno, Jac J. W. Andrews, Tom Strong

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersStrongUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsSociologyPedagogyExploratory researchPsychologyHumanitiesSocial scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educators can play a critical role in buffering LGBTQ youth from potential victimization. As such, the present study explored the following questions: 1) What are the roles of educators (i.e., teachers, school administrators) with respect to promoting and creating safe and inclusive spaces for LGBTQ youth; 2) what unique contributions can educators make in nurturing those spaces; and, 3) what barriers do educators face in creating safe and inclusive spaces for LGBTQ youth? This study used a convergent parallel design mixed-methods approach. Descriptive statistics were gathered from survey results; the interview data was analyzed using thematic analysis in order to generate themes relevant to the research questions. Discussion focuses on the roles of educators and the barriers with respect to providing safe and inclusive spaces for LGBTQ youth. The paper concludes with empirical and practical implications of the study. Key words: LGBTQ, teachers, administrators, support, advocacy Les professionnels de l’éducation peuvent jouer un rôle essentiel en protégeant les jeunes LGBTQ d'une victimisation potentielle. Ainsi, la présente étude s'est penchée sur les questions suivantes : 1) Quels sont les rôles des professionnels de l’éducation (c'est-à-dire des enseignants et des administrateurs scolaires) en ce qui concerne la promotion et la création d'espaces sûrs et inclusifs pour les jeunes LGBTQ ? 2) Quelles contributions uniques les professionnels de l’éducation peuvent-ils apporter à la création de ces espaces ? 3) Quels obstacles les professionnels de l’éducation rencontrent-ils dans la création d'espaces sûrs et inclusifs pour les jeunes LGBTQ ? Cette étude a utilisé une approche mixte de méthodes convergentes et parallèles. Des statistiques descriptives ont été recueillies à partir des résultats de l'enquête ; les données des entretiens ont été analysées à l'aide d'une analyse thématique afin de générer des thèmes pertinents pour les questions de recherche. La discussion porte sur les rôles des professionnels de l’éducation et les obstacles à la création d'espaces sûrs et inclusifs pour les jeunes LGBTQ. L'article se termine en présentant les implications empiriques et pratiques de l'étude. Mots cles: LGBTQ, enseignants, administrateurs, soutien, plaidoyer

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207