MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389639826 · doi:10.18357/jcs202321239

Amplifying the Encounters of Young Black Children with Anti-Black Racism: An Exploration of Parents’ and Early Childhood Educators’ Perspectives on Early Learning and Child Care Environments

2023· article· en· W4389639826 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Milena Pimentel, Jessie‐Lee D. McIsaac, Crystal Watson, Emma Stirling-Cameron, Nicholas Hickens, Barbara Hamilton-Hinch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Childhood Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Race Theory in Education
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMount Saint Vincent University
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRacismNova scotiaThematic analysisEarly childhoodEquity (law)Early childhood educationNova (rocket)PsychologyCurriculumGender studiesSocial justicePedagogySociologyDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchPolitical scienceCriminologyEthnologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is ongoing attention to equity and inclusion in early learning but a paucity of stories on diverse experiences. This study sought to understand the experiences of Black children in Nova Scotian early learning and child care environments through the perspectives of their parents and early childhood educators (ECEs) working in African Nova Scotian (ANS) communities or with Black children in Nova Scotia, Canada. Following in-depth interviews with parents and ECEs (n=15) three interrelated themes were identified using reflexive thematic analysis: anti-Black approach to curriculum; inaction on racism, social justice, and equity; and precluding Black children from culturally safe environments. The results highlight critical issues of racism in early learning environments and the importance of building culturally safe environments for young Black children and their families.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Childhood StudiesSame topicCritical Race Theory in EducationFrench-language works237,207