LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN’S PERSPECTIVES ON BOOKS BEING DELIVERED TO THE HOME DURING THE LETTERBOX CLUB SCOTLAND PROJECT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The low educational achievement of looked after children — children in the care of a local authority — is well documented in the United Kingdom and internationally. However, official statistics do not reveal the nuances of individual children’s lived experiences nor children’s agency. This article gives weight to children’s perspectives, and reports on the views of looked after children aged 7 to 10 in Scotland during the Letterbox Club project. It specifically investigates children’s perspectives of reading practices in the home and their responses to books delivered to them over a 6-month period. Data were gathered from 3 distinct but interrelated phases of the research: (a) literacy profiles completed by the children in collaboration with their carer(s), (b) children’s comments on evaluation sheets contained in each of the six parcels, and (c) individual conversations with children at the end of the project. The findings reveal the heterogeneous nature of looked after children with multifarious reading proficiencies and reading habits and routines. The children made choices about where and when they read and with whom, expressing opinions about books and authors and using the contents of the parcels to take action and gain greater ownership of their own learning. Finally, the contested nature of children’s agency is discussed, as well as the implications for future research involving looked after children.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".