MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417416803 · doi:10.5539/jel.v15n3p50

Exploring the Gender Inclusivity in Extra Mural Curriculum in Eswatini’s High Schools

2025· article· W4417416803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gibson Makamure

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumFocus groupNarrativeQualitative researchStrict constructionismInclusion (mineral)Social justiceInequalitySemi-structured interviewNarrative inquiry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a social constructionist lens, this research explored gender dynamics in extracurricular activities among Eswatini high school students. The study used a qualitative narrative inquiry methodology and included semi-structured interviews with 24 purposively selected participants (12 boys and 12 girls) aged 16 to 18 years from four high schools. We gathered data through individual interviews and focus groups. The data showed that cultural expectations and gender stereotypes have a strong influence on extracurricular activities, resulting in considerable inequalities in participation and support for boys and girls. While boys are encouraged to participate in competitive sports and frequently receive stronger institutional support, girls are typically consigned to supportive roles with little options for competitive involvement. Activities like rugby are primarily reserved for boys, supporting traditional gender standards. The study identified the mechanisms by which gender inequalities persist in school settings and recommends structural adjustments to promote greater inclusivity and justice in extracurricular programming.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207