MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE ON MATERIALITY IN EARLY CHILDHOOD STUDIES

2014· article· en· W1952181700 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Laurie Kocher, Veronica Pacini‐Ketchabaw, Sylvia Kind

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsCapilano UniversityUniversity of VictoriaDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMateriality (auditing)ConverseEthnographyNegotiationEarly childhoodGestureVisual artsEarly childhood educationChildhood studiesSociologyAestheticsMedia studiesArtPedagogyPsychologySocial scienceAnthropologyLiteratureEpistemologyLinguisticsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Materials live in the world in multiple ways. They can evoke memories, narrate stories, invite actions, and communicate meanings. Materials and objects create meeting places. In early childhood education we gather around things to investigate, negotiate, converse, and share. Materials – a block of clay, pots of paint, a brush, a colourful wire, a translucent sheet of paper, a rectangular block – beckon and draw us in. Materials are not immutable, passive, or lifeless until the moment we do something to them; they participate in our early childhood projects. They live, speak, gesture, and call to us. (Kind, 2014, p. 865 of this issue) This special issue of the International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies (IJCYFS) focuses on non-traditional approaches to materiality in relation to learning in early childhood education. The articles emerged, in large part, from a three-year study funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), entitled Encounters with Materials in Early Education, through which the editors conducted a visual ethnography study in two early childhood centres in Western Canada. That research provoked interest in exploring more broadly how notions of materiality are taken up in different contexts.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family StudiesSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207