Å nettverke bærekraftspraksiser. En kompost av juletrær, gjenbruksmaterialer og små ting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I denne artikkelen problematiseres bærekraftige barnehagepraksiser med materialer. Gjennom digitale fokusgrupper med barnehagelærere fra nettverket «Rommets kraft» utforsket jeg hvordan pedagogisk dokumentasjon kan bidra til at barnehagelærere øker sin kunnskap, eller får økt kunnskap, eller bidra til økt kunnskap hos barnehagelærere om bærekraftige perspektiver på rom og materialer. Begrepene kompost (Haraway, 2016) og response-ability (Barad, 2007; Haraway 2016) utforskes teoretisk og analytisk innenfor feministiske nymaterialistiske teorier. Bærekraftige barnehagepraksiser kan se ut til å stå i konflikt med barnehagens tradisjoner og kultur, ved bruk av juletre og gjenbruksmaterialer, og de yngste barnas interesse for små ting. Disse dilemmaene blir kompostert, og prosessen produserer dermed etiske og faglige utfordringer som barnehagelærerne berøres av i arbeid med bærekraft i barnehagen. ENGLISH ABSTRACT To Network Sustainability Practices. A Compost of Christmas Trees, Recycled Materials, and Small Materials This article problematizes sustainable Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) practices with materials. Through digital focus group discussions with ECEC teachers in the “The Power of Space” network, it explores how pedagogical documentation can contribute to increasing ECEC teachers’ knowledge of sustainable perspectives on space and materials. Theoretically and analytically, the concepts compost (Haraway, 2016) and response-ability from feminist new materialist theories are explored (Barad, 2007; Haraway, 2016). Sustainable kindergarten practices may appear to conflict with the ECEC’s practices in relation to traditions and culture, such as the use of Christmas trees, recycled materials, and the youngest children’s interest in small materials. These dilemmas are “composted,” and the process produces ethical and professional challenges that ECEC teachers must navigate in their work with sustainability practices in the 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".