MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using puppetry to elicit children's talk for research

2008· review· en· W2091830045 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Inquiry · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoGeorge Brown College
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPuppetryFeelingQualitative researchPsychologyData collectionSocial psychologySociologyVisual artsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although puppets have been employed by various disciplines in clinical and community (e.g. homes and schools) environments, little has been written about their use as a communication tool in research. In this article, a critical review of the literature is undertaken integrating the use of puppets in a qualitative research study exploring children's perspectives on and responses to a camp for children with cancer. Methodological considerations and ethical issues of using puppets as a data collection technique are discussed. Although some limitations exist, using puppets in interviews with children appear to help them to identify, clarify and verbalize their feelings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.526
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.047 · 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