Visual and Performance-Based Research Feedback for Children and Youth: at the Crossroads of the Arts and the Social Sciences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We are pleased to present our final issue of NEOS as Co-Editors.This diverse and fulsome issue features 15 contributions, composed of 3 invited commentaries and 12 articles, that explore and investigate communication in the worlds of children and youth.Through modes, methods, and approaches centering child-oriented communication-including creative expressions and multimodal methodologies-contributors invite readers into deeper understandings of how children and young people make sense of their world(s) and their place(s) within it.Following the work of Allison James (2007), whom several authors in this issue cite, the pieces collectively work towards seeing "childhood research [as] not simply about making children's own voices heard in this very literal sense by presenting children's perspectives.It is also about exploring the nature of the 'voice' with which children are attributed, how that voice both shapes and reflects the ways in which childhood is understood, and therefore the discourses within which children find themselves within any Society" (266).Thus, methods, voice, knowledge-creation, and questions about the nature of childhood and communication are central across this issue.To open this issue of NEOS, we offer three commentaries that speak to diverse ways of thinking with children and youth about how they engage in research and communicate about their lives.Julie Spray, author of The Children in Child Health: Negotiating Young Lives and Health in New Zealand (Rutgers, 2000), provides us with an illustrated representation of what it looks like to engage young research participants with visual methods.Spray's illustration reveals so many dimensions of youth-focused research including what it means to build rapport, to be supportive of young people's efforts amid fear of failure, to do research with (rather than on) young people, and to be reciprocal in our relations.Spray's work here and elsewhere illuminates the intersections of ethnography, visual representations, and the process of making art as a means of communicating with young people through research.Like Spray, Caitlin Nunn works at "troubling the borders of both 'researcher' and 'research'" by speaking to arts-based methods that are "affective, embodied, sensuous ways of knowing."Working with refugee young people, Nunn speaks to how art can illuminate important stories and histories, as well as generate research artifacts that can speak to many different audiences.Nunn reminds readers that pushing the boundaries of research processes and outcomes can be constitutive of a "hopeful practice" among young participants.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,058 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,016 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,004 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».