MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Irish Traveller Parents' Involvement in Targeted Early Years Education

2018· article· en· W2902063366 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anne Boyle, Joan Hanafin, Marie Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRomani and Gypsy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantageFocus groupEthnic groupIrishQualitative researchSocial constructivismPedagogyPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySociologySocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores Traveller parents’ involvement in Traveller preschools in Ireland. Travellers are a distinct cultural group who have experienced educational disadvantage. Against a backdrop of changing policy paradigms, Traveller preschools were established in the 1970s as a compensatory educational intervention. The methodology was mainly qualitative, drawing on interpretivism, social constructivism and critical theory. Methods included document analysis, focus group and individual interviews, and a questionnaire survey. Findings about Traveller parental involvement in preschools are presented in three broad overlapping categories; how school culture enables involvement; parents’ direct involvement in preschools; and their home-based activities supporting children's education and development. Travellers were extensively involved in various ways except formal decision-making. Traveller preschools were experienced as protected enclaves where parents felt welcome and accepted, and involved on an individual and familial level. This research highlights the importance of engaging in respectful ways with Traveller parents and acknowledging their educational involvement. Keywords Travellers, Ireland, Parents, Early Years Education, Qualitative Research, Ethnicity

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)0.005
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicRomani and Gypsy StudiesFrench-language works237,207