Working with childhoods and energies: critical reflections on specifying and locating the intangible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper critically reflects upon the work of collaboratories in researching childhoods and energies (‘childhoods-energies’). It compares divergent approaches to thinking with energy, children and young people in Canada and the UK. Although we begin from common conceptual foundations - inspired by feminist, new materialist, posthumanist and Common Worlds perspectives - we focus on tensions, incommensurabilities and differences in our thinkings and doings with energy. Our principal reasons for doing so, are twofold. First, energy is a difficult, slippery, multifaceted phenomenon that cannot be pinned down as readily as the material artefacts or companion species with which childhood scholars are often preoccupied. Moreover, energy - and energy education with children - often attempts to specify and objectify energy by conferring upon its intangibility measurements and acts of commodification. We disrupt these imperatives in diverse ways by examining how other energies emerged in our collaboratories: kinaesthetic, emotional, embodied, spiritual, and more. Second, despite commonalities, we have all been deeply attuned to the particularities of place - in London (Ontario) and Birmingham (UK). We offer vignettes from our collaboratories that elaborate the related-but-divergent forms of doing, knowing, thinking, moving and feeling that emerge from taking energy as a focus for childhood research.
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 | 0.037 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.120 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".