MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901223668 · doi:10.1177/0907568218811484

Interrogating innocence: “Childhood” as exclusionary social practice

2018· article· en· W2901223668 on OpenAlexaff
Julie C. Garlen

Bibliographic record

VenueChildhood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInnocenceConstruct (python library)SociologyDignitySilenceAgency (philosophy)Context (archaeology)CriminologyLawPolitical scienceSocial scienceAestheticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the contemporary US context, the construct of childhood innocence is a powerful social myth that structures children’s social relations and culture and informs their rights and status in society. In this article, I interrogate the construct of childhood innocence to examine how it operates as an exclusionary form of social practice. By examining the emotional investments and social tensions that have shaped concepts of childhood, which define who is entitled to innocence and what it means to “belong” with/in childhood, I reveal how the doctrine of innocence has operated to maintain White supremacy. I explore the implications of a construct of childhood that works against the agency and dignity of most children by perpetuating silence about social injustices to illustrate the need for a reconceptualization of childhood that acknowledges and prioritizes the human rights of all 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 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)0.006
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.090
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations118
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildhoodSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207