MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755737812 · doi:10.22215/cjcr.v1i1.19

Ask Them: Child Participation in the Development of Educational Services

2014· article· en· W2755737812 on OpenAlex
Manuel Finelli, Claudia Rocca, Valentina Marchesi, Stefania Maggi

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

VenueCanadian Journal of Children s Rights / Revue canadienne des droits des enfants · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizen journalismConventionIdeal (ethics)CurriculumConvention on the Rights of the ChildAsk priceEarly childhood educationChildhood studiesPedagogyThematic analysisQuality (philosophy)Medical educationPsychologySociologyMathematics educationPolitical scienceMedicineDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In accordance with Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child (UNCRC), we conducted a consultation process with 113 children between four and seven years of age from five different schools in Italy. We asked children to imagine their ideal school in guided conversations, drawings, and drawing descriptions. Their responses were organised into three thematic areas: (a) school quality, (b) purposes of early childhood education, and (c) activities to include in the school curriculum. Consistent with literature on participatory research, this six-month consultation process demonstrates that even young children’s views can be useful to policy-making. Particular attention is given to the methodology.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.250 · 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