Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a past few decades, significant growth in qualitative research has been made in the area of early childhood education. This has recently brought forth reflective critiques on the quality of the research. In particular, it is often noted that the method-centered tendency to prefer research techniques to research logic has spread among qualitative researchers, which could be termed as “technological” by nature. This study attempts to concretely analyze such technological trends of qualitative research at the level of their philosophical basis and presuppositions. Drawing upon Martin Heidegger`s existential-ontological analysis of modern technology, Jacques Ellul`s reflections on instrumental rationality embedded in today`s technical phenomena, and Don Ihde`s understandings of transformational structures of existential techniques, the analysis made in this study pays attention to the ways in which such technological trends show disinterested and decontextualized tendency against deep and multiple layers of meaning hidden in children`s educational reality.
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 | 0.335 | 0.384 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".