MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2143825740 · doi:10.1353/jeu.2011.0019

Ignorant and Innocent: The Childs of Common Cultural Discourses

2011· article· en· W2143825740 sur OpenAlexaffvenue
Mavis Reimer, charlie peters

Notice bibliographique

RevueJeunesse Young People Texts Cultures · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueThemes in Literature Analysis
Établissements canadiensUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNewspaperAdjectiveTerminologySentenceNounClass (philosophy)PsychologyLinguisticsMedia studiesSociologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Ignorant and Innocent:The Childs of Common Cultural Discourses Mavis Reimer (bio) and charlie peters (bio) At an early point in most courses Mavis Reimer teaches in young people's texts and cultures, she sets an assignment in which students are asked to bring to class at least one recent item about children clipped from a newspaper or magazine, transcribed from a television program, downloaded from a website, photocopied from a textbook, or found on an advertising flyer. Requests for clarification of the assignment typically are queries about other possible sources of information; no one appears to find the terminology of "children" difficult or questionable. Working in small groups, students are asked to unearth the assumptions about children embedded in the texts they have found, using the sentence form [End Page 88] "[c]hildren are ____" and filling in the blank with a noun or a predicate adjective. It is at this point that students sometimes resist the assignment, protesting that texts that report on actual young people should not be grouped with texts that discuss abstract children or ideas about childhood. Whether the groups decide to sort their texts into these subcategories or not, the first round of discussions typically results in copious lists: children are found to be annoying, beautiful, competitive, consumers, creative, dangerous, egocentric, gullible, precious, smart, and vulnerable, among many other things. In a second round of discussions, groups are reorganized and asked to study the lists produced by all of the groups, in order to consider what positive ideals might underlie some of the negative descriptors attached to children and to assemble the descriptors into categories. By the end of their discussions, most groups have found that, with a few exceptions, the assumptions identified by the class fall into two broad categories. Groups describe these categories in various ways, but the first can be summarized as the assumption that children are or should be learners, and the second as the assumption that children are or should be the best of human beings, or alternatively that children represent or should represent the best of what it means to be human. That both texts about actual young people and texts about abstract children work within the same set of assumptions leads to a discussion of the ways in which ideologies are instantiated in material practices and of the regulatory functions of discourse, in this case the discourse of "the child." The outcome of this classroom activity is not surprising, given that there are two dominant theoretical frameworks through which "the child" is conceptualized in those societies that continue to ground their laws, spoken and unspoken, on their inheritances from Western European traditions. The first of these is a narrative of development from an inferior to a superior state: at its barest, this narrative holds that young people are ignorant and unknowing subjects who will naturally acquire knowledge and grow in wisdom as they move toward adulthood. The history of this view stretches back at least to classical times, although it is common for developmental accounts of children's growth to take the Enlightenment as a point of origin. One of the most frequently cited examples is from the work of the late-seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke. In Some Thoughts Concerning Education, originally a letter written to a friend, Locke famously describes the "very little" gentleman's son who is the particular subject of his letter "as white Paper, or Wax, to be moulded and fashioned as one pleases." While Locke acknowledges that "there are possibly scarce two Children, who can be conducted by exactly the same method," he nevertheless believes that young people are enough like one another that he can formulate "some general Views" on "the main [End Page 89] End and Aims in Education" (261). The story "The Purple Jar" by Anglo-Irish writer Maria Edgeworth is a literary example of a child character in the process of learning how to be a prudent consumer. Rosamond chooses aesthetics (an appealingly purple jar to hold flowers) over utility (a pair of new shoes), even though her shoes have holes in them. While preparing the new purple jar for flowers, she empties it of the...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,418
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,954

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,248
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJeunesse Young People Texts CulturesMême sujetThemes in Literature AnalysisTravaux en français237 207