MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474852334 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v56i3.55408

Introduction: Resituating Canadian Early Childhood Education

2010· article· en· W2474852334 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Veronica Pacini-Ketchabaw

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarly childhood educationEarly childhoodConversationSociologyPedagogyChildhood studiesPostmodernismRelevance (law)Educational researchGender studiesSocial scienceMedia studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologyEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This journal issue began with a conversation between Larry Prochner and myself at the Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education Conference in June 2008 held in Victoria, British Columbia. We discussed the idea of bringing together a group of Canadian early childhood education scholars who have been inspired by reconceptualist ideas to make their work more visible and simultaneously to further develop this important body of knowledge. Our hope was that this issue, in conjunction with other existing reconceptualist-informed work, could open spaces for rethinking practice in early childhood education in Canada. The response to the call for papers for this special issue reassured us that Canadian scholars have much to contribute to current discussions in early childhood education, especially when early childhood education has emerged as a key priority for various provincial jurisdictions over the past five years. In my view, an expanded early childhood education system cannot be pursued without critically engaged conversations about our common understandings of childhood and learning. The articles in this issue engage in this conversation. This preamble brings me to the purpose of this collection: the theory-practice divide in early childhood education. Reconceptualist ideas (based on postmodern, poststructural, feminist, and postcolonial, among other postfoundational theories) have revolutionized the field of early childhood education. This body of scholarly work has the potential to disrupt normalizing early childhood education discourses that create and maintain social inequities in society and to respect differences and diversities. At the same time, critiques have been presented that question the relevance of the reconceptualizing movement to everyday early childhood education practices. Given the importance of diversity in the Canadian context, it seems relevant to challenge the notion that postfoundational theories are primarily theoretical enterprises and explore how the theory-practice binary has been situated in traditional early childhood education discourses. The articles in this volume engage with this challenge. The authors do not view theory and practice as separate categories, nor do they refer to the application of theory to practice; rather, their work can be situated in the intra-active nature of theory and practice as described by Lenz Taguchi (2010). In this introduction, I do not attempt to define the reconceptualist movement in Canada or to provide a history of its genealogy. Plotting its history and creating a definition of reconceptualist ideas in early childhood is not a linear and simple task. At the same moment that definitions are demarcated, exclusions are created. Furthermore, a historical account needs to take into consideration time and place as uneven and dynamic, something that would require much more space than I have here. Rather, I elaborate on four themes that link the articles in this issue to the broader reconceptualist literature. My

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0240.008
Scholarly communication0.0150.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207