Documentary and Gifted Education: <i>Superkids 2</i> and its Impact on Perceptions of Gifted Education and Arts-Based Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arts-based research (ABR) has been gaining attention and popularity in recent years. One manifestation of this is the increased adoption of research-based documentaries as a means of knowledge production and mobilization in the field of gifted and talented education (e.g., RISE, The G Word ). However, there has been little conversation on how documentaries can be more systematically adopted as a research tool. The goal of the study is to understand field researchers’ and practitioners’ perspectives, considerations, and inspirations regarding a gifted documentary and ABR. Employing a one-group posttest only design, this study treated the screening of the Superkids 2 documentary as an intervention and used a post-screening survey to collect data. Research participants ( N = 135) were recruited from two international conferences in gifted education (NAGC and APCG). Findings of the study show a strong appreciation for ABR and a heightened willingness for further exploration. The findings also indicate that Superkids 2 not only deepened understanding of the gifted population but also stimulated reflective and critical thinking regarding research and teaching practices, which aligns with the essence of qualitative research.
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 | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".