How bike riding kids talk about bike riding.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are children who bike regularly despite biking trending otherwise. For the past year, including through the global COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the researchers have been talking with biking-supportive parents and biking-active kids about their perspectives and experiences of biking. At the heart of this research the researchers wanted to know: what is it about biking that parents and children value so much that they are willing to keep riding, despite the changing context and attitudes toward children's biking? How do parents and children make sense of, negotiate and ultimately resist dominant discourses regarding children's biking, particularly children biking without adult supervision? Through the fall of 2019 and spring of 2020, the researchers held interviews with 19 parents and 24 kids (aged 10 to 16) who rode bikes regularly (at least once a the week), and whenever possible the researchers interviewed parents and children separately. The researchers prefer to use the descriptors of 'kids' (versus children) and 'biking' (versus cycling) to more closely reflect the everyday language used by kids to describe their bicycling activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".