IS CURRICULUM IN THE CLOSET? INSTRUCTORS ' PERCEPTIONS ABOUT GAY AND LESBIAN CONTENT IN ALBERTA UNIVERSITY GENDER COURSES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work is the zenith of several years of post secondary education, beginning with my undergraduate degree and optimistically concluding with a doctorate in the future. I could not have accomplished any of this work without the continuing support and encouragement from some very strong-minded and unwavering women in my life. I owe this accomplishment to Dr. Nancy Buzzell who held the light for me when I was stumbling around in the darkness. Thank you Nancy for teaching me that I must always "think of what I want, rather than what I fear. " For that wisdom and your warm smile, I am eternally grateful. This thesis is also dedicated to my mother who taught me that if you have the ability to read then knowledge is never out of reach, and no part of the world is inaccessible regardless of gender, age, socioeconomic status, race, religion, or sexual orientation. I thank you Mom for always having books around that allowed me to escape to another world, and for teaching me that we can educate ourselves in whatever way we choose. I thank both of you for believing in me during times when I didn't. You are truly inspirational. iii This study focuses on the nature of university instructors ' beliefs and attitudes toward gay and lesbian content in the university Gender course curriculum. It was intended to provide a better understanding of factors such as academic freedom, societal influences, personal opinions, curriculum, and institutional influences that might affect attitudes and thus undermine the inclusion of discussion about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) issues. Participants in the study were seven instructors from the faculties of Social Sciences, Faculty of Education, Applied Psychology, and Educational Psychology at the University of Alberta, the University of Calgary, and the University of Lethbridge, in the province of
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".