Bibliographic record
Abstract
By challenging the discourse of play as innocent, this paper argues that children enact and maintain social inequalities in their play in the early years classroom and ways that and social injustices that exist in society that are acted in children’s play which create conditions for children to consciously exclude others. Thinking with poststructural theories, this paper examine how dominant theories play in early childhood education create the social conditions in the classroom that allows for inequalities and injustices in society and to be recreated in children’s play. This paper uses Foucault’s notion of power, to examine how issues of power regulate children’s play and examines how issues of power is related in children’s play and how it creates social injustices and inequalities. I argue that when educators do not attend to the issues of power exists in children’s play children are marginalized and excluded in the classroom. When children are seen as innocent, educators fail to recognize that children do attend to the politics of race, gender, and size and consciously and unconsciously exclude others based on the injustices and inequalities created in society. Most importantly, I shed light on the conditions in the classroom that educators unintentionally embed dominant thinking and practice in their pedagogies, policies and procedures. I argue for the importance of educator’s to self-reflect and take action through daily practice in their role of constructing dominant discourses and stereotypes in the classroom. I argue how integral it is as an educator to be aware of our responsibility to educate children on social inequalities and injustices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.125 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".