Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Book and Film Reviews 135 The Sociology of Childhood and Youth in Canada Xiaobei Chen, Rebecca Raby, and Patrizia Albanese, Editors (2017). Toronto: Canadian Scholars. 425 pages. $74.95 (print). ISBN 978-1-77338-018-6 (softcover). 978-1-77338-019-3 (PDF). 978-1-77338-020-9 (EPUB). The editors and contributors to The Sociology of Childhood and Youth in Canada seek to revise childhood and youth studies through inversion of their developmental stages. We see child-centered stories that revamp the criteria that one uses to define what young folks need to know and be in society. The contributors treat us to a wealth of sources and methods for representation of youngsters’ lives. The volume has 20 chapters in four sections, an introductory essay, and a glossary at the end. The introductory chapter notifies the reader that children and youth are individuals whose lives do not neatly fit the contexts that experts assign. The editors depict the very real challenges that any student of research with children, youth, and their families faces. There is a perennial topic in Section I: Research on and with Children and Youth, which concerns how researchers form relationships with youngsters. The writing in the five chapters is quite lively, and contributors write to the research neophyte. Section II: Social Constructions of Childhood and Youth, investigates experiences and texts in children’s lives. We look at studies in disability, friendships, and storybooks. Section III: Inequalities and Intersections in Experiences of Childhood and Youth, shakes the assumption of benevolence in institutions. Section IV: Citizenship, Rights, and Social Engagement, points out that international standards such as those in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) buttress the need for recognition of children as participants in determination of their life courses. There is a perennial reminder that international law like the CRC may articulate Western norms and ideals of childhood. The editors give us a wide scope of topics, and possibilities for further research programs may be imagined. It is laudable to draw in readers who are students as active participants in creation of research questions and consideration of ethical issues. I carefully read the glossary, and it is an enjoyable read on its own. Its writing reminds readers of key methods and lessons from the studies in the collection. I applaud inclusion of research in Francophone educational contexts. Investigators decouple a traditional relationship between pedagogy and Quebec nationalism. This pairing is being ruptured through focus on the child as a “unit of analysis” (p. 51) who depicts the school environment and not “the other way around.” I like that methods are part of the stories because all researchers make and remake plans as they collect and analyze data. Such weaving of methodological insights into story shows how research actually occurs. The authors make great effort to ensure that their unique studies pose arguments and questions of interest to readers. Unfortunately, there is a significant problem: Book and Film Reviews 136 there is simply too much information in the chapters. To illustrate my criticism, I refer to chapter 16 by Cameron Greensmith and Adam Davies. There is brief mention of a student, David, who did once attend his school’s gay-straight alliance (GSA) meetings but decided not to continue involvement because in his opinion, lesbians and tea dominated the club’s rhythm. In sum, he did not feel included in the club. I did really enjoy reading this anecdote, and Greensmith and Davies are correct that it deserves picking apart, as there are issues of sexism, racism, power, diversity, and complexity that affect development of GSAs in schools. This story could be the focus of the entire chapter, but the authors introduce it and then leap to another topic. A counterpoint to chapter 16 is Jihan Abbas’ superb chapter six, which begins with her memories of her brother, her home, and her childhood. She uses literature to comprehend her experiences, frustrations, and hopes for children with disabilities. Significant topics that are likely to interest readers get short shrift. In chapter five, Jacqueline Kennelly, Valerie Stam, and Lynette Schick have a relationship that transcends standard understandings of roles and responsibilities of faculty, their...
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».