‘A one-day stand’: exploring how Canadian guest educators’ sense-make time in sexual health education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I discuss how guest sexual health educators assess, value, and use of time in sexual health education. Drawing on a subset of findings from a larger sensory ethnographic study conducted in British Columbia, Canada, I explore guest educators’ sense-making of what is and can be included in K-12 sexual health education – and what must be cast aside – given the time and other constraints of public education. I contribute two fine-grained, embodied narratives that highlight how guest sexual health educators’ classroom practices are guided by a sense of impermanence and imminentness. Discussing key moments within the narratives when guest sex educators troubled, or were troubled by, time, I explore how these moments open up possibilities for rethinking rigid, time-driven teaching practices that often reflect judgements about the need for sexual health education to be controlled, consistent and palatable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".