Living In-Between: Exploring the Experience of Chinese-Canadian Third Culture Kids through Chinese Children’s Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this intended case study is to explore the possibilities and potential in terms of using Chinese children’s literature to support the language and literacy development of TCKs (Third Culture Kids defined as a person who has spent a significant part of his or her developmental years outside the parents’ culture), whose heritage language is Mandarin Chinese, and to help them recognize and deal successfully with the challenges of growing up among cultural differences. The study is underpinned by social constructivism, sociocultural perspective on literacy, and third space theory. I expect this study will not only unfold the living in-between experiences of Chinese-Canadian TCKs, but also reveal the ways in which parents and communities can help these individuals address challenges and take hold of the gifts bestowed on them through their global childhoods. Furthermore, through this study I hope to better understand how reading and sharing Chinese children’s literature within a group that shares similar experiences can support Chinese-Canadian TCKs’ language and literacy development, and their construction of sociocultural identities. This model of reading practice will serve as an example to benefit broader groups of TCKs and their families in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".