MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2524959207

Examining Rhetorics of Play in Curricula in Five Provinces: Is Play at Risk in Canadian Kindergartens?

2016· article· en· W2524959207 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shelley Stagg Peterson, Jim Anderson, Maureen Kendrick, Marianne McTavish, Kathy Budd, Debra Mayer, Laureen J. McIntyre, Burcu Yaman Ntelioglou, Dianne Riehl

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanGovernment of ManitobaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumChristian ministryPedagogyEarly childhood educationRhetoricCurriculum developmentEarly childhoodSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, school division and Ministry of Education–based early childhood consultants and university researchers respond to the question of whether play is at risk in kindergartens in five Canadian provinces by analyzing current and previous kindergarten curricula using Sutton-Smith’s framework of rhetorics of play. We find that play is integral to kindergarten curricula in Saskatchewan and Ontario, but only implicitly mentioned in the Alberta, British Columbia, and Manitoba curricula where support documents provide more support for play. The rhetoric of play as progress is the dominant discourse of current kindergarten curricula.

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)0.018
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 score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0190.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation→Same topicEarly Childhood Education and Development→French-language works237,207→