MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951617065 · doi:10.1002/tea.21105

“We could think of things that could be science”: Girls' re‐figuring of science in an out‐of‐school‐time club

2013· article· en· W1951617065 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Science Teaching · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubScience educationSociologySociocultural evolutionFiguringConversationMedia studiesPedagogyPsychologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Grounded in sociocultural theory, this study explores how the figured world of science is reworked through a series of multi‐media activities that were introduced into a girls‐only conversation club in an after school program for Teens. The study is part of a multi‐sited ethnography in which we explored youths' engagement with science within three sites. In this paper, we focus on a qualitative case study of one site. We present an analysis of the kinds of resources and cultural models of science that youth mobilized as they re‐figured science together over time, and in a space usually reserved for talk about girls' issues. Our study revealed that a meaningful introduction of science into an out‐of‐school‐time (OST) space that values youths' prior experiences seemed to depend on a two‐way exchange: re‐figuring their experiences as science‐experiences; and the re‐figuring of science to include their every‐day experiences. The study was successful in helping the girls re‐figure the world of science in ways that went beyond the mobilization of cultural models tied to school science only. Through collage, video production, formal and informal dialogue, youth mobilized resources from youth culture to position themselves as insiders to science and to refigure science to include resources from their everyday experiences. Yet, that figuring was also heavily marked by time and space. Follow‐up interviews point to a limited shifting of what counts as “real science” or how the youth consider themselves in relation to science. We conclude with a discussion of the gap between youth interest driven science experiences and science experiences driven by disciplinary practices detached from the world of youth. We discuss the implications of such a tension for introducing science into OST settings with program goals that extend beyond science learning. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 50: 1068–1097, 2013

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.

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)0.151
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1510.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.028
Scholarly communication0.0010.014
Open science0.0070.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.213 · 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