Editorial - The relevance of child studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child Studies is an international peer-reviewed journal which publishes empirical and theoretical articles focusing on children's social contexts and their social practices and relationships, both at local and global level and from a contemporary as well as historical viewpoint.Taking a holistic perspective, Child Studies aims to provide a multidisciplinary forum for sharing and discussing issues such as children's rights, development and well-being; child education and care services and institutions such as families and schools; professional practices and professional development of social workers, teachers, nurses and other professionals working with children; children's leisure and play in urban spaces and communities; children and the media in the digital world; child and childhood representation in public discourse (media, law, religion, literature, academia…); children and the arts; children's literature; intercultural and intergenerational relations and the broader societal, political and cultural issues impacting children's lived realities.Child Studies is a multidisciplinary field of research which includes Child Studies is a multidisciplinary field of research which includes perspectives coming from psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and historians, as well as geographers, philosophers and others.Areas such as education, economics, political science, urbanism, medicine and neurosciences compete in the field, but also converge towards a more holistic understanding of the child.Among the historical founders of the field are great figures of 20th century science, such as Jean Piaget (1896-1980), one of the greatest child psychologists of all time, who created the developmental theory, and Phillipe Ariès who published Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life (originally in French L'Enfant et la Vie Familiale Sous L'
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 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.013 |
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".