MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126185036 · doi:10.26443/mje/rsem.v59i3.10131

Ontario secondary teacher comfort with sexual violence prevention education

2025· article· en· W7126185036 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Salsabel Almanssori

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l éducation de McGill · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual violenceSuicide preventionInjury preventionSexual abusePoison controlQuality (philosophy)Human factors and ergonomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study inquires into teachers’ self-identified comfort in teaching about and preventing sexual violence. A Likert-scale survey was used to collect data from 105 secondary teachers from one public school board in Ontario. Findings suggest that participants tend to be more comfortable with teaching about consent and respectful relationships than gender-based and sexual violence, and more comfortable with intervening in more overt and culturally recognizable sexual violence incidents than those that are subtle. Participants overwhelmingly poorly rated the quality of sexual violence education received both pre-service and in-service. Level of comfort, job insecurity, and level of knowledge were all frequently rated as moderate to extreme barriers to teaching about sexual violence. Implications for sexual violence prevention education are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l éducation de McGillSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207