MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408427998 · doi:10.53967/cje-rce.6933

Discursive Decoys: The Legitimation of Homophobia and Transphobia, Educational Neutrality, and Teacher Deprofessionalization in Mainstream Media’s Coverage of the “Parental Rights” Movement in Manitoba

2025· article· en· W4408427998 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shannon Moore, Kevin Lopuck

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Education Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamLegitimationNeutralityTransphobiaGender studiesSociologyPolitical scienceMovement (music)Media coverageMedia studiesCriminologyLawTransgenderPoliticsAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 2023 provincial election in Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative Party (PC) committed to enhancing “parental rights” in education if elected for a second term. This article examines the way the PCs’ campaign materials, surrounding media coverage, and responses from provincial public education partners legitimized the underlying discourses of the “parental rights” movement. This movement endorses the erasure and harm of 2SLGBTQIA+ students and community members, disregards and undermines children’s rights, and privileges the perspectives of particular parents. Using critical discourse analysis, we outline the way that homophobic and transphobic discourses are legitimized through the coverage of this campaign. We also outline the ways that neutrality is weaponized in order to secure heteronormativity in schools. Moreover, we reveal the ways that teachers are villainized (criminalized) in order to advance “parental rights” claims. By putting discursive tactics on display, this article reveals the way that power is operationalized and secured.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicDiverse Education Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207