Exploring the Rural Construction of Masculinity and Boys’ Engagement with Schooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates the construction of masculinities for a group of rural boys in one secondary school in South Western Ontario. It looks specifically at how the construction of gender, specifically masculinity, affects the boys' engagement with schooling. The purpose of this study was to document and develop an awareness into how boys' perceive their own masculinities and how these perceptions influence their engagement with schooling at one particular site. Six grade ten male students participated in semi-structured interviews providing insight into the rural construction of masculinity and its influence on schooling.\nThe research indicates that male students construct and produce a dominant form of masculinity. The findings also highlight that boys who engage with activities associated with hegemonic masculinity are able to dominate other students and police the inappropriate male behaviour of others. This stereotypical behaviour negatively influences boys' engagement with schooling. This study confirms the usefulness o f conducting research involving rural students in order to provide a voice for these boys. It is also necessary acquire insight into how masculinity is constructed in a rural area so educators can gain valuable insight into how masculinities affect boys' engagement with schooling.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".