Restorying the image of the child’s body in early childhood education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article emerged through the author’s involvement with the University of Victoria’s Investigating Quality in Early Learning Environments project in British Columbia. During an eight-month internship, the author had the opportunity to collaborate with community facilitators in the province; participate in monthly learning-circle discussions with educators and researchers; share pedagogical narrations; connect theory to practice explicitly; and think with children’s bodily encounters. This article contributes to broader and deeper discussions about children’s bodies by placing value on reflective thought, decision-making, and action. While unpacking her own tensions of letting go of common assumptions about children’s bodies, the author considers the ethical and political implications of bodily encounters. To do this, she teases out the growing discourse of risky play and describes the value of thinking in moments of not knowing. Then, the author considers how early childhood education might restory the image of children’s bodies through conversations with other educators in a particular setting, while complexifying young bodies during a risky-play scenario of pulling loose boards onto a staircase. Through post-foundational theory, the educators and the author advocate for bodies by contesting the powers of dominant discourse and considering how bodies might search for meaning in the world. By opening space to think differently, by noticing, and by paying deep attention to the corporeal as it explores and generates truths that bring forth creative evolution, the author was taken by surprise to see what lies beyond that which she thought was possible.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".