Children’s voices from the past: New historical and interdisciplinary perspectives. By Kristine MoruziNell Musgrove and Carla Pascoe Leahy (Eds.), Palgrave Macmillan, 2019 ISBN 978‐3‐030‐11895‐2, XIX, 342 pp., £99.99 (hb)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the start, the editors of Children's Voices from the Past: New Historical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives set out their argument that the voices of children in the past can be heard best when methodological approaches are applied that attune the researcher to the ways children express their thoughts and feelings both in word and behaviour.This book provides 13 chapters of individual studies that vary in approach and represent both historical and interdisciplinary research.Each chapter, with its own topic and theme, centres the question of how to 'hear' children given the challenges posed by the passing of time, social and cultural marginalisation and a general disregard for children's perspectives.This collection is a contribution to the field of histories of childhood and young people as it provides rich and diverse examples of how researchers can engage with the many voices of children in creative and innovative ways.Young people's voices are found by these scholars in written documents, images, oral histories and other observations of behaviours and actions of dissent.In the introduction, the editors outline the development of debates around voices of the marginalised and specifically those of young people.They provide a useful summary of some dominant discussions concerning where to find children's voice in sources.Importantly, the editors also outline the scepticism many scholars have as to whether children's voices from the past can ever really be known given the adult mediation of so many sources as well as the passage of time that relegates experiences into curated expressions or memories about the past.Children's Voices from the Past disrupts and continues this debate by showing new ways that researchers can adapt their methods to effectively engage with the ways children of the past communicated.Highlighting just two studies in this book helps to illustrate the edited collection's value.In her chapter on uses of a Nom de Plume by New Zealand youth between 1880 and 1920, Anna Gilderdale explores how anonymity can provide a means for creating a distinctive social self as opposed to providing merely public concealment (58).Instances of hidden gender and ethnicity illuminate the many ways that young people's identities were constructed to serve the writers' aims.Focusing on historians' relationship with their sources, Deidre Michell's chapter challenges the researcher, specifically oral historians, to consider how they act as witnesses to their historical subjects.Michell presents a case for historians to act as 'enlightened witnesses' towards their participants that may help participants, who were previously victimised, to reconceptualise themselves as historical actors 'contributing to an improved world' (218).Rather than providing concrete
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".