MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568608165 · doi:10.1177/1463949116677930

Shifting temporal frames in children’s common worlds in the Anthropocene

2016· article· en· W2568608165 on OpenAlexaff
Veronica Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kathleen Kummen

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Issues in Early Childhood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsCapilano UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropoceneRealmSociologySociocultural evolutionContext (archaeology)Environmental ethicsEpistemologyAnthropologyHistoryArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, the authors bring the new temporal theorizations of the Anthropocene into the pedagogical realm by grappling with the shifting time relationships the Anthropocene makes one aware of within the context of children’s common worlds. Using an actively inclusive more-than-human common worlds framework that reassembles worlds by countering the divisive distinction that is often drawn between sociocultural contexts (mostly dominated by clock time) and natural environments, the authors resist the epistemological division between society and/or culture as distinct from nature that underpins post-Enlightenment western thinking in early childhood pedagogies. The authors’ common world pedagogies are primarily interested in the real-life worlds that 21st-century children inherit, inhabit and share with human and more-than-human others. They acknowledge that these lifeworlds are imperfect and complex, and that they come with multiple legacies. In this article, the authors focus on the temporal legacies young children inherit and inhabit in their common worlds.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.046
Scholarly communication0.0100.014
Open science0.0010.015
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations48
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Issues in Early ChildhoodSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207