THE INTERPLAY OF MASCULINITIES IN SCHOOL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates the interplay of masculinities for a group of boys in one elementary school in south-western Ontario. It looks specifically at how these students negotiate and enact a dominant popular masculinity in response to a particular value system and regime that dictates gender hierarchies. The purpose of this study was to document, articulate, and construct knowledge and awareness about boys’ own understanding of the interplay of masculinities and peer group hierarchies at one particular site. Five Grade eight male students participated in semi-structured interviews providing insights into gender relations and peer group hierarchies and the nature ofhegemonic masculinity at this school. Findings indicate that male students construct and produce a form of dominant masculinity to which particular groups of male students subscribe. The research highlights that boys who engage in performances associated with hegemonic masculinity are able to gain dominance and power over other students and police appropriate male behaviour. This study confirms the usefulness of conducting locally based research in school communities in terms of its capacity to provide a more nuanced and complicated picture of masculinities than that afforded by populist accounts of the boys’ education crisis.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Ethnographic thesis on hegemonic masculinities among schoolboys; the object is gender relations, not research.
The thesis studies masculinities and school hierarchies rather than research practice.
Sociology of school masculinities; object is gender in education, not research itself.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".