MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619788353 · doi:10.18357/jcs.v37i2.15197

Early Childhood Transitions and Critical Praxis

2012· article· en· W2619788353 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kate Tilleczek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Childhood Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisEarly childhood educationEarly childhoodSociologyContext (archaeology)Meaning (existential)Critical theoryPedagogyGender studiesDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyEpistemologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents literature and findings on childhood transitions in public education. Set in the context of shifts in Canada to full day kindergarten, it makes visible the range of human relational and structural concerns that must be considered in the practice of researching and facilitating transitions for children. The paper draws upon a review of international literatures and a longitudinal, three-year qualitative study of 795 students, parents, and educators in 37 families of schools who conversed about the character and meaning of transitions. Such long-term enactments of transitions as they occur are scarce but important in making visible the complexity and nuance of childhood transitions. Findings include the importance of a critical praxis for transitions which gets at the roots of the social organization and inequality in research and educational practice. The paper addresses critical praxis as found in three early childhood education frameworks (Australia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, Canada). Attention to being, becoming, and belonging for all children and the fit between human and structural concerns at the levels of society, community, school, and family form core elements of critical praxis. Transitions are best understood and facilitated as over time, complex social ensembles.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Childhood StudiesSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207