MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411993538 · doi:10.15353/cjds.v14i1.1211

Amplifying Voices: Disability Justice and the Future of Sexuality Education in Ontario

2025· article· en· W4411993538 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Adam Davies, Cameron Greensmith, Justin Brass, Katrina Esteireiro, Chelsea Jones, Kathleen Clarke, Victoria Martins Mendonca, Samantha O’Leary, John Beaton, Malissa Bryan, Orion Neustifter, Shoshanah Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Disability Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of GuelphYork UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityEconomic JusticeGender studiesSociologySocial justiceCriminologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article engages with disability justice principles (Sins Invalid, 2015, 2016) as a framework for reconceptualizing school-based comprehensive sexuality education. Through the perspectives of disabled childhood studies and disability studies in education, this article advocates for inclusive and affirming practices and tenets that can guide professional pedagogies and curricular development within and beyond Ontario K-12 schools to cultivate school climates that honour and affirm the identities, experiences, and genders and sexualities of disabled learners. This article provides specific practice-based recommendations through the frame of disability justice principles for professionals and educators in schools.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0400.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Disability StudiesSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207