Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear members of the CAYC community, We would like to share with you exciting news about the CAYC journal. Journal Name Change In April 2016, the CAYC Board decided unanimously to change the name of the journal. Formerly titled Canadian Children: Journal of The Canadian Association for Young Children, the journal is now called: The Canadian Association for Young Children Journal of Childhood Studies. The new title reflects contemporary changes in the conception of childhoods and its growing relation to a wider array of fields of studies and practices. This change also responds to, and opens up, questions about identities and belonging in light of the transient nature of contemporary childhoods, and the necessity to actively respond to histories, present and future, of Indigenous childhoods. Increase in Number of Issues Over the past couple of years, with the support of a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the journal has grown in its scope, depth, and accessibility. Our goal is to publish four issues per year (an increase of two issues per year). To this end, we regularly put out calls for papers from researchers and practitioners. The Journal of Childhood Studies invites papers that explore childhoods through theory, research, and practice across diverse disciplines. Free Access As one of the leading journals on the topic of childhood on the Canadian landscape, CAYC has committed to making The Journal of Childhood Studies freely accessible online. In its new format, local and international early childhood practitioners, students, and researchers can access the journal on a regular to basis learn about and respond to alternative approaches and conceptualizations of childhood and its related practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.430 | 0.335 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".