MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405346653 · doi:10.24908/jcri.v11i2.17486

From Anti-Racism to Critical Race Theory in Ontario Public Schools

2024· article· en· W4405346653 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Regan Tyndall, Kashif Raza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Race Inquiry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Discipline and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacismCritical race theoryContext (archaeology)Race (biology)SociologyCritical theoryEquity (law)Gender studiesPolitical sciencePublic relationsLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distortion of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in American popular media has spread to Canada, where the word “race” has traditionally been avoided in education, but where incidents involving race and “anti-racism” now garner considerable attention. We outline CRT in education and the context surrounding anti-racism work in Ontario. We then analyze important initiatives, such as Ontario’s proposed Bill 16 and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board’s “Learn. Disrupt. Rebuild.” module, in terms of their relevance within the CRT theoretical framework. Basic qualitative content analysis shows that the much-discussed provincial-level Bill 16 does not reflect the tenets of CRT—despite what its opponents, notably organizations such as Parents As First Educators (PAFE), have argued. However, the district-level “Learn. Disrupt. Rebuild.” initiative does reflect some tenets of CRT. This latter equity initiative is suggested as a model, starting from the local level in school districts, that other Canadian educators supportive of CRT should feel justified in following, as progressive Canadian districts move from anti-racism towards the next phase of district reform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Critical Race InquirySame topicEducation Discipline and InequalityFrench-language works237,207