How Much Snot is Too Much Snot? Community-Making Amid Pandemic Times in Early Childhood Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article details a pedagogical inquiry research project, Crafting Pedagogies with(in) Suspension: Viral Pedagogies in COVID times in Early Childhood Education, where educator co-researchers collaborated with a pedagogist-researcher to explore how we might craft early childhood education pedagogies relevant to pandemic times. In particular, we trace how questions of community-making emerged as quotidian conceptions of community failed in the conditions of the pandemic. Thinking with the question “how much snot is too much snot?”—a question educators were asked to assess as a marker of community participation—we share three tensions of community-making: policing bodies, normalcy, and community-making as an ongoing process. Importantly, we work to share our pedagogical thinking with these tensions, asking how they create different possibilities for making community with children and families in educational contexts. Cet article décrit un projet de recherche sur l'enquête pédagogique, intitulé Crafting Pedagogies with(in) Suspension : Viral Pedagogies in COVID times in Early Childhood Education, dans le cadre duquel des co-chercheurs éducateurs ont collaboré avec un chercheur-pédagogue pour explorer la manière dont nous pourrions concevoir des pédagogies d'éducation de la petite enfance adaptées aux périodes de pandémie. En particulier, nous montrons comment les questions relatives à la création de communautés ont émergé lorsque les conceptions quotidiennes de la communauté ont échoué dans les conditions de la pandémie. En réfléchissant à la question "quelle quantité de morve est trop importante ?" - une question que les éducateurs ont été invités à évaluer en tant que marqueur de la participation communautaire - nous partageons trois tensions liées à la création de la communauté : le maintien de l'ordre des corps, la normalité et la création de la communauté en tant que processus continu. Plus important encore, nous nous efforçons de partager notre réflexion pédagogique avec ces tensions, en nous demandant comment elles créent différentes possibilités de créer une communauté avec les enfants et les familles dans des contextes éducatifs.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".