MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095787893 · doi:10.2304/ciec.2009.10.3.291

Queering Child/Hood Policies: Canadian Examples and Perspectives

2009· article· en· W2095787893 on OpenAlexaffabout
David V. Ruffolo

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Issues in Early Childhood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporatizationEarly childhood educationMarketizationEarly childhoodPoliticsSociologyDisciplineGovernmentalityControl (management)Public policyNeoliberalism (international relations)Gender studiesPolitical sciencePedagogyPublic relationsSocial scienceChinaDevelopmental psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines how notions of ‘child’ and ‘childhood’ are produced in relation to recent early childhood policies in Ontario, Canada. It centers on an ongoing shift from Foucauldian disciplinary societies to Deleuzian control societies where it is argued that early childhood subjects (researchers, students, educators, administrators, and parents) are becoming less confined to specific spaces and tasks and are more controlled by the flows of knowledge, information, and communication. Current public policy debates are used to explore how early childhood education (ece) is becoming increasingly aligned with neoliberal calls for privatization, corporatization, and marketization. For instance, evidence-based practices and quality control indicators are quickly replacing developmental norms that have traditionally normalized and abnormalized children. The consequences of these transformations are examined using queer theory as a critical lens to explore how the identities of ECE subjects are deeply implicated in social, cultural, political, and economic factors — influences that are changing as a result of the shift from discipline to control.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Issues in Early ChildhoodSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207