MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7020009757

The Impossibility of Sex Education: A Psychosocial Study of Parent Involvement in Policy Controversies

2021· other· en· W7020009757 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialGovernment (linguistics)Public policyCurriculumHuman sexualityImpossibilityEducation policyPolicy analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, many impassioned debates regarding educational policy have pitted parents against the public education system and have thrown questions of parental and state responsibility for childrens education into the media spotlight, particularly in relation to issues of sexuality. This dissertation investigates the emotional aspects of these debates by taking an approach to educational policy research that is informed by psychoanalytic theory. Working across the three fields of psychosocial, critical policy, and sexuality studies in education, I highlight the ways that the participation of parents as policy actors in two Canadian educational policy debates is influenced by their own histories of development, education, and sexuality. The first policy controversy I focus on took place in Alberta in 2012, when the government tried to pass a new Education Act that included a provision stating that educational programs of study needed to be in alignment with existing human rights legislation. The second policy controversy took place in Ontario between 2015 and 2019, when a new Health and Physical Education curriculum was introduced and then withdrawn from the provinces schools. Employing a psychosocial methodology, I analyze print and online media coverage of both controversies alongside in-depth interviews with two parents who participated in the Alberta policy case and three parents who participated in the Ontario case. My analysis of the significance of emotional dynamics throughout the data proposes that parents use defence mechanisms such as splitting to contend with the ethical and affective complexities of discharging their responsibilities of care to their children while having to share educational authority with the government. The emotional intensity circulating through these two controversies suggests the difficulty of confronting the failures and limitations inherent in projects of parenting, governance, and education.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.024
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)→French-language works237,207→