MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965024180 · doi:10.21810/sfuer.v12i2.932

Listening to Young Children: A Mosaic approach

2019· article· en· W2965024180 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueSFU Educational Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningMosaicEarly childhood educationEthnographyInclusion (mineral)PsychologyEarly childhoodChildhood studiesQuality (philosophy)PedagogyDevelopmental psychologySociologySocial psychologyCommunicationGeographyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inclusion of children’s responses in research of educational settings are important and have been described as a pertinent tool to understand and be aware of children’s perspectives that adults may not be aware of (Lundqvist, 2014). Sheridan (2011) further expresses that the “evaluation of quality of early childhood education must include the voices of children” and is an essential part of the overall understanding of early childhood education. The responses and voices of young children reflect diverse forms of communicating, representing and interpreting their thoughts and emotions. This paper will present some models that can help guide the researcher to make decisions about how a child can participate in the research activity. Specifically, I will describe the use of an ethnographic combined with Clark and Moss’s Mosaic approach to researching with children.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.313 · 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