Children and inquiry: researchers’ reflections on research involving children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative descriptive study employed a mixed methods approach to investigate research conducted by Canadian researchers who involve children in their studies. Data collected from a questionnaire completed by thirty researchers across Canada were contextualized through seven interviews, with the goal of compiling a description of the research designs and the mechanisms of engagement used to involve children. A thematic analysis was conducted in order to explore the research designs used, how beliefs about children and childhood shape research design, and ethical and reflective practices used in research involving children. Overall, findings indicate that a wide range of research designs and mechanisms of engagement are used. Implications for practice emerging from this study suggest that researchers should choose a design approach to best suit the study’s purpose, and that deliberate and continuous reflection in design practices and implementation can promote ethical practice when conducting research involving children.
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 | 0.095 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| 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".