(Un)finding childhoods in citational practices with postdevelopmental pedagogies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taking up the contention that child development manifests through the developmental logics it enacts, the authors work with citational practices as iterations of how developmentalism's logics are done in everyday practices in early childhood and teacher education. They work with Erica Burman's method of ‘found childhood’ to propose citational practices as artefacts of found childhood – as traces of how childhood happens in contemporary life and as an indicator of the dominant knowledges and knowledge-making practices that animate 21st-century childhoods. With disciplining and failure as moments of citational practices, the authors follow how practices of citing do and do not do developmental logics. In dialogue with postdevelopmental pedagogies, they wonder how one might cite into otherwise futures beyond the certainty and temporalities dictated by child development. The authors refuse the progress-oriented logics of child development and do not articulate new ‘best’ practices for citing, but instead write through provocations that might take up questions of world-making, pedagogy and life in line with the propositions offered by postdevelopmental pedagogies.
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 | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".