Death discussion in science read‐alouds: Cognitive, sociolinguistic, and moral processes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Little research has been conducted on how to address the complex topic of death when teaching science to children. The present paper addresses this issue by examining how three elementary teachers discuss the death of wild animals during science read‐aloud sessions. Our findings reveal the variety of ways in which nonhuman death can be cognitively, sociolinguistically and morally organized in such contexts. In terms of cognition, animal death was conceptualized metaphorically in terms of linear or cyclic motion (SOURCE‐PATH‐GOAL and CYCLE image schemas). Sociolinguistically, animal death was sometimes approached as the product of an agent's action (e.g., a predator) and at other times as an agentless outcome (e.g., a biological event that simply befell upon living creatures). Lastly, natural death was presented as morally “good” (i.e., acceptable biological outcomes of life in the wild), whereas pollution‐related death was organized as unnatural and morally “bad” (i.e., unacceptable loss of natural life whose occurrence students should critically question). This study highlights the centrality of metaphorical structuring to nonhuman death discussions in the science read‐alouds investigated and the possible pedagogical implications of favoring the approaches described. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 51: 117–146, 2014
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it