The Role of Formal Education in Advancing the Goal of Reproductive Justice: A Case for Comprehensive Sexual Education in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equitable access to formal education relating to human development and sexual health is integral in achieving reproductive justice at community and provincial levels. Reproductive justice is an important social goal as it provides a framework within which individuals can exercise autonomy over their reproductive and procreative capacities. These individuals can make informed decisions that align with their own goals and desires, absent of the influence of friends, family, policy, or healthcare workers. Formal education is one of the first introductions to topics of human development and sexual health for young people. The case of Ontario is unique in that the topic of health and physical education has been in the political landscape for over a decade while the social perspectives of sexual education have remained relatively unchanged. The current research project seeks to evaluate the extent to which formal health and physical education in Ontario promotes the development of reproductive autonomy, with a focus on the potential for generating reproductive justice at the provincial level. Through a thematic analysis and critical reading of both the elementary and secondary level curricula, it is determined that neither curriculum effectively supports the development of reproductive autonomy. The elementary curriculum includes many references to themes indicating the support of autonomy but is structured in such a way that teachers can interpret the curriculum expectations in multiple ways and parents can remove their children from instruction relating to human development and sexual health. Similarly, the secondary curriculum contains indications of supporting autonomy, but this conclusion cannot be made as only one course of the seven offered at the secondary level is mandatory. As a result, most students will likely not encounter those topics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".