"Science Isn't Just What We Learn in School": Interaction Rituals That Value Youth Voice in Out-of- School-Time Science.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I explore what happens when digital media activities designed to stimulate science conversations are introduced to an out-of-school-time (OST) space usually reserved for talks about girls’ issues. The goals of this study were to provide a space that values youth voice and creates positive emotional energy around science-related subjects. In this article, I identify episodes of interaction rituals that provoke positive emotional energy toward science among a group of adolescent girls in a community centre in a low-income urban neighbourhood. Results highlight moments when youth mobilize their funds of knowledge and demonstrate emotionally positive charged engagement with science. I then conclude with an exploration of the limitations of shifting ideas about what counts as “real science” and the implications for science teaching both in and out of the classroom. Resume Cet article explore ce qui s’est passe lorsque des activites mediatiques digitales, destinees a stimuler les conversations a propos des sciences, ont ete integrees a un programme parascolaire habituellement reserve aux conversations entre adolescentes. Les objectifs de cette etude etaient de fournir un espace valorisant les voix des jeunes et creant une charge affective positive envers les sujets scientifiques. Cet article identifie les episodes d’interaction ayant provoque une charge affective positive envers les sciences chez un groupe d’adolescentes, dans un centre communautaire situe dans un quartier urbain defavorise. Nous identifions les moments d’engagement positif avec la science grâce a la mobilisation de «fonds de connaissance» et par leurs «repertoires de pratique». Cependant, nous identifions egalement les limites des tentatives de changer ce qui est percu comme «la vraie science» ou comment les jeunes se considerent en relation avec la science, tant dans la classe qu’a l’exterieur de celle-ci.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".