Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses early childhood educators’ perceptions on how power relations are shaped by interactions between themselves, children, and the material environment. In a qualitative three-phase case study I explored educators’ perceptions on how power relations are enacted within one preschool classroom in Southern Ontario, and how power relations are affected when educators conceptualize the environment through the perspective of space and place. Drawing on reconceptualist theory in early childhood education, children’s spatialities, and Michel Foucault’s work on power in society, I suggest that power circulates between bodies and spatialities, in the complex interactions between individuals and the physical spaces they encounter. The findings suggest that while early childhood educators may understand intuitively the demarcation between space and place, external constraints – real or perceived – are barriers to change. I argue that shifting philosophical and pedagogical stances in early childhood education have resulted in two binarized positions, where philosophy and pedagogy are frequently understood as either child-centred, or teacher-directed orientations and that troubling the binary by thinking with place can help refigure power relations between educators and young children. The conceptual distinction between thinking of early childhood classrooms as space or place is significant and I argue that viewing the environment as place is one possible way educators can reconceptualize traditionally hierarchical and binarized power dynamics between themselves and young 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".