A Rhizomatic Exploration of Adolescent Girls’ Rough-and-Tumble Play as Embodied Literacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a teacher-researcher in a public charter middle school in the northeast United States, I simultaneously led a sixteen-month qualitative study and hosted an after-school beading class to investigate a group of adolescent girls’ self-selected, spontaneous intersections of literacy, play, and art. Between two and eight eleven- to thirteen-year-old girls agreed to participate in each meeting. Drawing on case study methods, I worked flexibly through participant observation to support adolescents with their self-selected projects, I video recorded this activity, and then I analyzed the resulting data using a rhizomatic approach in order to identify intense moments of affect. While play continuance seemed to be the girls’ main objective, they also voluntarily engaged in academic literacy activities that supported play. Further, rough-and-tumble play offered the girls opportunities to engage in low-risk heterosexual/heteronormative role play, unintentionally rupturing expectations of female passivity and pursuing positive affects as additional rewards of play. This study demonstrates how youth-centered play can provide access points to child-driven academic and embodied literacies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".