MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404360889 · doi:10.1075/lia.00022.cae

Children’s multimodal participation in interactions and dialogues across different activities in an earlychildhood education and care setting

2024· article· en· W4404360889 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Caët, Marine Le Mené, Caroline Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Interaction and Acquisition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarly childhood educationPsychologyEarly childhoodMultimodal therapyDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings are challenging contexts for children to engage in conversations. According to previous studies, toddler participation is minimal. However, most studies have focused on vocal productions. This study investigates how gestures also enable children to participate in interactions. From video recordings of three types of activities (mealtime, playtime, booktime) in a French ECEC, we systematically categorised utterances as being vocal, gestural or multimodal. One third of the utterances was produced by children. In mealtime and playtime, most utterances contained a vocal production, while in booktime, most contained a gesture. Gestural utterances were only addressed to professionals. The qualitative analysis of two sequences further highlights how gestures enable the building of joint attention, the co-construction of dialogic exchanges and the engagement of some children as observers. Taking gestures into account sheds new light on children’s participation in interactions and dialogues in ECEC.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Interaction and AcquisitionSame topicEducation and Technology IntegrationFrench-language works237,207