The Kids are in Charge: Activism and Power in Peru’s Movement of Working Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few decades, recognition of children's participation in creating and engaging in the social world around them has become increasingly important to many child and youth scholars and advocates, but sometimes children's participation is discussed as if the idea is a brand new, Western idea.Jessica Taft's (2019) book on Peru's movement of working children provides rich, compelling, and inspiring evidence to the contrary, although she is also cautious not to idealize the movement.Peru, as well as other parts of Latin America, has had a vibrant, long-term, participatory organization of working children and their adult colaboradores.Peru's movement of working children is mobilized around an understanding of children as political and economic participants, working together with adults to pursue children's rights to dignified work and other social justice issues relevant to children.Rather than write about the specific question of children's work, however, Taft concentrates on the history, values, processes, activities, possibilities, and challenges of this children's social movement.Her research is based on four ethnographic research trips to Peru that involved attending numerous organizational meetings, interviewing key children and adults, analyzing movement documents, and attending many events.Through her analysis, Taft deconstructs assumed binaries between adult and child, and narrow, naturalized understandings of childhood that are used to justify adults' rule over children's lives; instead, she outlines an alternative vision of childhood that fosters horizontal, intergenerational collaborations.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".