MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762893934 · doi:10.18357/jcs.v42i2.17838

Canadian Children and Race: Toward an Antiracism Analysis

2017· article· en· W2762893934 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kerry‐Ann Escayg, Rachel Berman, Natalie Royer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Childhood Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpan (engineering)Life spanRace (biology)White (mutation)PsychologyHumanitiesGender studiesSociologyArtGerontologyGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="section"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Psychological research on Canadian children and race has shown that young White and racialized children generally have a pro-White bias. While scholars have utilized developmental </span><span>or social psychological explanations for this finding, none </span><span>have used an antiracism lens to interpret children’s racial attitudes or to develop an antiracism pedagogy. To address this research gap, this article uses antiracism theory as an </span><span>analytical tool to explore the social-historical processes that </span><span>have affected how children evaluate racial differences and </span><span>White identity. It also briefly proposes antiracism teaching practices specific to early childhood education settings. </span></p></div></div></div></div>

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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