INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE ON INVOLVING CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN RESEARCH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The status of children and young people in social research has been a key area of debate since the emergence of the "new" sociology of childhood in the late 1980s and early 1990s.Sparked initially by work in sociology and anthropology, the sociology of childhood rapidly spread to become an interdisciplinary area of interest, now commonly referred to as "childhood studies", to recognize its increasing multi-disciplinary spread (Punch & Tisdall, 2012).With the emergence of this paradigm, new ways of conceptualizing and theorizing childhood were linked to changes in how research with children and young people was conducted.Researchers considered how their own understandings of childhood, constructed by "culturally and historically specific beliefs and assumptions" (Harden, Scott, Backett-Milburn, & Jackson, 2000, 2.4), affected the way they engaged with children and young people in the research context.The concept of children's agency was enthusiastically adopted by the nascent childhood studies community (James & Prout, 1997) and underpinned attempts to allow children and young people a "more direct voice and participation" (Prout & James, 1997, p. 8) in research about their lives.This agenda stood in contrast to historic -and cross-disciplinaryresearch practice, which relied on the perspectives of adult researchers, professionals, or parents (Woodgate, 2001).There were also strong links with a children's rights
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.032 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".