MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911699433 · doi:10.1177/2043610618825005

Centering the problem child: Temporality, colonialism, and theories of the child

2019· article· en· W2911699433 on OpenAlexaff
Hunter Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Studies of Childhood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemporalitySubjectivityColonialismSociologyContextualizationChildhood studiesEpistemologyPsychologyGender studiesDevelopmental psychologyHistoryPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What would it mean to center theories of the child around those who are evacuated from childhood? I propose the idea of the “problem child” as an encapsulation of those who are constructed outside of Western understandings of childhood. In this essay, I explore how the problem child illuminates colonial entanglements between childhood and constructions of time, and the implications this holds for theories of the child. To do so, I position Carla Shalaby’s Troublemakers as a provocation to theories of childhood: her masterful portraits illustrate how problem children are constructed as such temporally, repeatedly narrated as late or out-of-sync. Put otherwise, Shalaby’s centered focus on troublemakers highlights the ways in which temporality is used as a limit to constructions of the child. I build on Shalaby’s provocation to argue that the ways in which childhood and temporality interlock are a production of colonial understandings of subjectivity, in which childhood is co-constructed with linear time. In asking what it might mean to center the problem child, I argue for the contextualization of dominant Western understandings of the child in the colonial violence in which they were produced in order to challenge assumed connections between the child and temporality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Studies of ChildhoodSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207