MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555011538

Constructions of gender in preschool, preschoolclass and primary school.

2010· article· en· W1555011538 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ylva Odenbring

Bibliographic record

VenueBorås Academic Digital Archive (University of Borås) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Educational Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClass (philosophy)ConversationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPoint (geometry)Conversation analysisCommunication
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper is based on work conducted in my dissertation that aims to explore gender constructions in preschool, preschool class and the first grade. In the analysis, gender constructions as they appear in children’s interactions and between children and adults are explored. Barrie Throne’s (1993) concepts borderwork and crossing are of theoretical importance in the study. The dissertation consists of two studies based on different sorts of empirical data. In the first study, video recordings from the FISK project [The Preschool and School in Collaboration Project] are re-analysed. The analysis takes its starting point from conversation analysis (CA). The second study consists of data collected from a separate fieldwork carried out in a preschool class, for which I have been personally responsible. On the whole, the analysis shows that borderwork situations are more frequent than border crossing. Gender boundaries were strengthened by the way the teachers interacted with the children. Also the children were part in this as for how they reacted to behaviour that was considered inappropriate. Especially boys experienced this, but what differs from previous research is that boys more frequently challenged gender boundaries. The recurring borderwork situations raise questions about equality in preschool, preschool class and school.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorås Academic Digital Archive (University of Borås)Same topicSocial and Educational SciencesFrench-language works237,207