“This is a different kingdom”: A case study of gender-creative feminine expression during princess play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many children, but predominantly young girls, gravitate towards princess play. In response to previous academic findings suggesting that princess play is always detrimental to young children's developing perspectives of femininity, this qualitative study explores the potential for gender-creativity during this roleplaying game. In an effort to refute the pre-existing literature, the current case study asks the following question: To what extent does princess play offer creative or confining possibilities for childhood feminine expression? While much of the literature in early childhood education (ECE) indicates that Disney is the sole inspiration for every child's construction of this imagination game, the findings in this article indicate that Disney is one influence among many for focal participants. Using open coding to analyze data generated during play-based interviews with two cisgender girls, this article demonstrates that the creative possibilities of princess play remain underrepresented in research. Although princess play offers only partial potential for non-stereotypical feminine expression, gender normativity can be actively challenged, especially when adults support and encourage unconventional formats of princess play during early childhood.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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; 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".