MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Images of childhood and the implied reader in young children's information books

2010· article· en· W1861656995 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia A. Larkin‐Lieffers

Bibliographic record

VenueLiteracy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PsychologyConstruct (python library)InnocencePresentation (obstetrics)Early childhood educationPicture booksPerceptionUnconscious mindEarly childhoodDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsLiteratureArtComputer sciencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Images of childhood are ideas and expectations of childhood and children, and are reflections of individual perception and cultural ideologies. In writing children's books, authors draw on their conscious and unconscious thoughts of childhood to create an implied reader. In this paper I investigate images of childhood through examination of the portrayal of the implied reader in a selection of information books, a genre that is often overlooked for beginning readers. Three books of various sub‐genres, topics and presentation styles were examined for images of childhood and the child in the text and illustrations. Some images include childhood in formal education, the child as a co‐constructor, the child as a cultural reproducer, and childhood as a time of innocence and play. The construct of the implied reader shapes the reader and the reading experience, and is thus an element of the power of the text; awareness of the implied reader and the real reader response can help in teaching young children to read both with and against the text. When selecting information books, attention to their images of childhood as well as to the quality of the information they provide, will help to optimise young children's early reading experiences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiteracySame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207