Understanding Administrators’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Gender-Inclusive Washroom Design at a Canadian Secondary School: A Case Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study of a Canadian secondary school captures teachers’ and school administrators’ perceptions of a recently-constructed gender-inclusive washroom. Questions about employees’ perceptions of the washroom with respect to its location, amount (and importance) of visibility from common areas, and whether students understand the space as safe and socially inclusive were asked. Employees do not feel as though the new washroom has been a success. Its location is perceived to be too far from common areas and classrooms where a sense of surveillance may curb bullying and general misuse of the space. Design features that appear to be for social use have been confusing for some students and have promoted inappropriate behaviours in the setting. Despite this, students and employees believe that the intention of the washroom’s design was positive and that its flaws have initiated helpful conversations about diverse needs and the importance of respect among the school community.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it