MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036538999 · doi:10.5539/ies.v5n4p71

Re-Imagining Inclusive Education for Young Children: A Kaleidoscope of Bourdieuian Theorisation

2012· article· en· W2036538999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sunanta Klibthong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitusKaleidoscopeSociologyPedagogyEarly childhood educationPerspective (graphical)Critical theoryField (mathematics)EpistemologyTransformative learningEarly childhoodInclusion (mineral)Cultural capitalPsychologySocial scienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses critical issues related to the development and practice of inclusive education of young children, from the perspective of Bourdieu’s conceptual lenses of habitus, capital and field. The target question is: How can Bourdieu’s lenses of critical social theory be applied to the development and implementation of early childhood inclusive education? Under this question, I situate early childhood inclusive education in four components (active learning environment, involvement, relationships and wellbeing), and critically analyse these in terms of Bourdieu’s three conceptual lenses. I argue that effective inclusive education of young children must not conform to modernist epistemology, which locates knowledge exclusively in teachers and that, Bourdieuian conceptual tools offer refreshing epistemological and reflective radars for re-imagining and enacting pedagogical practices that contribute to all children’s holistic development.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.074
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.408 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207