Constructing knowledge and ignorance in the social information worlds of young mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The socially constructed information worlds within which individuals live, work and play necessarily shape their information practices. One way in which this occurs is through the social construction of knowledge, expertise and ignorance, including which actors are considered to possess authoritative knowledge through administrative authority or lay expertise. Using Adele Clarke's situational mapping techniques, this paper examines the discursive construction of knowledge and ignorance in the information worlds of young mothers in the Greater Vancouver region of Canada. Data was collected via observations at school‐based Young Parent Programs and interviews with 37 young mothers over a 15‐month time period. Gendered and racialized young parent social worlds discursively constructed the “teen mom” as knowledgeable in matters of sexuality and technology and ignorant in matters of parenting and health. Further, certain forms of experiential expertise common to marginalized groups were sometimes constructed in such information worlds as forms of ignorance. Recognizing the diversity of knowledge and expertise among young mothers rather than perceiving them as unilaterally information poor may lead to improved information and support services for young parents.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".