MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174777550

Children's fears, hopes and heroes - modern childhood in Australia

2007· article· en· W2174777550 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joe Tucci, Janise Mitchell, Chris Goddard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicThemes in Literature Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)NationalityPsychologyPolitical scienceHistoryImmigrationLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report examines the experiences of modern childhood through the results of an online survey undertaken by a national sample of 600 children and young people aged between 10 - 14 years. The following key themes emerged from the study’s findings. Children’s sense of their place in the world is under threat. Children are particularly concerned about the environment. Over a half of the children surveyed are about not having enough water. Just over four in ten (44%) are nervous about the future impact of climate change and 43% of children are about air and water pollution. A substantial proportion are also concerned about the escalating tension in world affairs. Almost a third of children (31%) are that they will have to fight in a war when they get much older. More than a third (36%) are apprehensive about terrorism. A quarter of children are so troubled about the state of the world that they honestly believe it will come to an end before they get older. Children’s sense of their community is under threat. Half of the children (51%) did not feel welcome in shops and cafes. Over a third (36%) believed that adults do not care about what children think. A substantial proportion of them were really about being teased (57%), not fitting in with friends (54%) and being bullied (52%). 1 in 10 of the children surveyed were particularly anxious about being called names because of their culture or nationality. 1 in 13 were about being called names because of their religion. More than a quarter (27%) of children feared being a victim of crime. Increasingly, children are disturbed by the relentless pressure of marketing aimed at them. A large majority (88%) believed that companies tried to sell them things that they do not really need. Children’s sense of themselves is under threat. Overwhelmingly, a substantial proportion of children feel insecure. Nearly half (46%) of the children surveyed do not feel confident about themselves. More than a half (57%) about what others thought about them. 4 in 10 stated that they do not ever feel like they are doing well enough. Almost 1 in 5 (19%) believe they are growing up too fast. A large number (41%) of children are specifically about the way they look with 35% concerned about being overweight and 16% being too skinny. By using a cluster analysis, these overall findings suggested that the population of children who completed the survey could be categorised into children who felt well connected and supported (52%), the worried group (42%) or the and insular (8%) group. This last group, in particular, show signs of enormous vulnerability and are most likely to be set on an early trajectory of hopelessness and despair. The authors conclude that children themselves believe that adults show little concern or respect for their views and opinions. This study is unequivocal in the strength of its conclusion. Children should be consulted about what the world should be like. And adults should listen. The report finally notes that all children, and in particular those who are disconnected and insular, would be better supported if the Australian Government re-established the role of Minister for Children and created a National Children’s Commissioner. Together, these national structures should carry responsibility for developing nationally co-ordinated and properly resourced responses to vulnerable children and young people.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations62
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThemes in Literature AnalysisFrench-language works237,207