MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175855276 · doi:10.1177/2043610615597148

Children’s perceptions of their experiences in early learning environments: An exploration of power and hierarchy

2015· article· en· W2175855276 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tiffany Barnikis

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Studies of Childhood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHierarchyCurriculumPerceptionPedagogyTheme (computing)Early childhood educationPerspective (graphical)Power (physics)SociologySpace (punctuation)PsychologyMathematics educationPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study explores five children’s perspectives of their experiences in both a university laboratory school and in their current public school setting. The perceptions of the children, aged between 4 and 6, provide innovative and significant information on how early childhood education is being realised in Ontario, Canada, as the government’s full-day kindergarten curriculum is being fully implemented across the province. Children express their thoughts and opinions on their learning through semi-structured conversations and child-produced drawings. Employing the ‘new’ sociology of childhood, critical pedagogy and a child rights–based perspective as theoretical frameworks, an overarching theme of power and hierarchy is established throughout the children’s descriptions of their experiences in their current public elementary school setting. More specifically, this central theme of power and hierarchy, and how it is realised in classroom environments in order to regulate and control children, is explored through the children’s descriptions of space, pedagogical practice, rules, and their decision-making and influence on curriculum.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Studies of ChildhoodSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207