MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594054762 · doi:10.18357/jcs.v36i1.15135

Moving Onward: Reflections and Re-interpretations of the Reggio Approach

2011· article· en· W2594054762 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Childhood Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Methods and Practices
Canadian institutionsBow Valley College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarly childhood educationSociologyPedagogyKey (lock)Early childhoodPsychologyComputer scienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers an insight into teaching and learning from various interviews I conducted with educators about their journey with the philosophy of Reggio Emilia. Many early childhood educators in North America are captivated by the philosophical fundamentals of Reggio Emilia. Emerging from Reggio Emilia, Italy after the destruction of WWII, this approach embraces several key principles that guide the educator. These include: the importance of teachers as researchers, documenters, observers and listeners; the environment as the "third educator," and the image of the capable, competent child (Edwards, Gandini & Forman, 1998).

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.257 · 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