MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413395802 · doi:10.3138/rcsi-2025-0005

“We're not kids!”: Aged Authority in Elementary Students’ Classroom Peer Interactions

2025· article· en· W4413395802 on OpenAlex
Meghan Corella

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Children and Social Interaction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aiming to contribute to the small body of work that analyzes age as not only socially constructed but interactionally accomplished, this paper examines how California second-grade students refer to and perform aged identities (e.g., “baby,” “teenager”) in classroom peer interactions. Through the lens of what they call “aged authority,” the author analyzes how students take authoritative stances by making aged identities demonstrably relevant to their interactions across various types of classroom activities. An ethnographic multimodal analysis combining interactional and intersectional perspectives shows how, through topicalizations, stylizations, (mock) affect displays, storytelling, and ritual insults, focal students take stances of aged authority that variously reinforce and unsettle developmentalism, adultism, and other discourses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.322 · 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