MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099980859 · doi:10.2304/gsch.2012.2.2.97

A Case for Using Indigenous Children's Literature for Emotion Socialization in Schools

2012· article· en· W2099980859 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara McNeil

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Studies of Childhood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationVocabularyIndigenousPsychologyContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)DialecticPower (physics)SociologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building on the work of developmental theorists, this article argues that school is a significant cultural site for emotion socialization and that the use of cultural texts such as children's picture books can play an important role in helping young children to identify and express emotions, and learn about their relational context. The author takes the perspective that teaching and learning about emotions are never neutral; they are complex, dialectical and are freighted by history, relations of power and influenced by factors such as race, class, gender, and language. As a way of countering social devaluation, exclusion and omission, the article makes a case for using children's texts that feature the cultural and family contexts of indigenous groups such as the Métis of Canada. It shows how culturally relevant and developmentally appropriate picture books that are rich with emotion-related themes and vocabulary can be used in schools to teach about the cultural and family contexts of emotion socialization.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0200.062
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Studies of ChildhoodSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207