Getting to know movement differently: Nurturing communicative, relational, and collective movement pedagogies with toddlers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We share moments from ongoing pedagogical inquiry work with toddler-aged children, where we explore together how we might tentatively create conditions for movement to happen outside of the familiar, dominant, status-quo referents of individualism and motor skill development that anchor much physical activity curricula. Sharing pedagogical documentation images and stories, we present three provocations that we moved through with children. We describe how through engaging these provocations together, we came to know movement as communicative, relational, and collective. We conclude by recounting a provocation we hoped would spur conditions for moving differently beyond our habitual taken-for-granted methods of moving together. As we spend time with three provocation stories, we work hard to raise questions and uncertainties and to share our intentions and responses, rather than presenting our activities as universalizable or easily implementable practices. Throughout the article, we engage with movement conditions and pedagogies as ethical and political concerns.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".