MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405359976 · doi:10.3138/jeunesse-2023-0019

Oplan Tokhang and Stories of Childhood: Children across Literature and (Trans)Media Places during the Duterte Regime in the Philippines

2024· article· en· W4405359976 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cheeno Marlo M. Sayuno

Bibliographic record

VenueJeunesse Young People Texts Cultures · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical sciencePsychologyMedia studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Philippines, children are one of the most vulnerable sectors disadvantaged by the past administration headed by former president Rodrigo Duterte. The Human Rights Watch reports that dozens of children have become victims of Oplan Tokhang, the president’s flagship program on the war against drugs since he claimed office in 2016 ( oplan is a slang for “plan” and tokhang is a play on Filipino words toktok or “knock” and hangyo or “plead”). This article seeks to explore the case of Filipino children and how they operate within literary, media, and socio-political dimensions. Selected works published during the Duterte regime, particularly those that tackle socio-political narratives, are presented. Afterward, the media representations of children in the news and on social media are discussed. The literary and media spaces provided for the concept of childhood are linked through Henry Jenkins’s concept of transmediality. By presenting storyworlds where children are at the center of navigation across narrative/nonnarrative media/nonmedia spaces, the meanings of childhood in the Philippines are unearthed from the transmedia place that these spaces create for the Filipino child.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.026
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJeunesse Young People Texts CulturesSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207