Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter looks at two sets of experiences. Seemingly quite different: indigenous communities in Canada, and countries in Africa, but the two stories are intertwined and synergistic, extending from children and families, through communities, to country level dynamics. It came at a transition point in a 25-year history of cross-cultural work when he was considering what might be extracted from those experiences and shared with others focused on early childhood education, care and development (ECD) in the Majority World. That history has been marked by fortuitous invitations. It should be part of scholars&s; and scholarly institutions&s; work not only to pass on what is known, but to seek in all ways possible that which is not known, whether through quantitative analysis or through questions to students about their own childhood and development. The creation of the Compendium has made it possible to examine trends in the ECD literature in sub-Saharan Africa over time.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".