MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4302282398 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14654478.v1

Are some feelings just too big for child care?: An exploratory study of Early Childhood Educator’s interpretations of internalizing and externalizing behaviours

2022· preprint· en· W4302282398 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Apostolopoulos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMental healthFeelingAggressionDistressAnxietyAdverse Childhood ExperiencesEarly childhoodClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyExploratory researchEmotional distressPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young children are at high risk for exposure to trauma and adverse childhood experiences, yet mental health services are limited for this age group. Children’s emotional pain is manifested in their behaviours, which are referred to as externalizing (e.g., aggression) and internalizing (e.g., anxiety) behaviours. Early Childhood Educators (ECEs) are bound to encounter children who exhibit this type of behaviour without knowing what it could mean. Therefore, this online mixed method pilot study examined the interpretations that ECEs used to determine the causes of behaviour, and their awareness of emotional distress in very young children in three written case vignettes. It also explored the strategies that ECEs engage in when responding to a child in distress. The findings provide insight to the gaps in pre-service education on children’s emotional health, and communicates the need for a trauma-informed approach to childcare. Keywords: children’s mental health, behaviour, interpretation, trauma-informed approach

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→