Bibliographic record
Abstract
We live in a culture that teaches us to value being seen and heard above all else. In early childhood classrooms teachers are encouraged to create individual spaces for every child and to artfully display their work as it is created. Especially in Euro-Western, neoliberal contexts, policy and curricula commonly call for early childhood professionals to pay special attention to children and families who come from immigrant or otherwise marginalized backgrounds. We are urged to acknowledge and elevate children's and families’ differences for all to see. But does everyone—child, teacher, and caregiver—want to be seen and heard all the time? What are the affordances and constraints of the visibility injunction under which we live? In this article we set out to reimagine the classic hide-and-seek paradigm in order to shed fresh light on the place of hiddenness and withdrawal from public view in the formation of positive self-regard. Is the joy of hiding always defined by the anticipation of being found? Are the pleasures of seeking only realized by the possibility of finding something/someone or is seeking an activity with its own rich rewards? Our stories and responses to each other are set out in a call-and-response pattern that echoes the six semi-structured hour-long conversations on which this article is built. Musical interludes are provided between each story/response couplet offering readers moments to pause, reflect, and argue with us as they move through the article.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".