MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414931501 · doi:10.1007/s44217-025-00832-9

Early childhood education and social change: a literature review

2025· article· en· W4414931501 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Atha

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial justiceCurriculumEconomic JusticeFoundation (evidence)Value (mathematics)Early childhoodEarly childhood education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social justice has been a topic of social change that has typically been introduced in education at the pre-teen or teenager level of development. However, recent studies have uncovered there is value in introducing social justice issues at a much younger age. The purpose of this literature review is to establish a foundation for the need to introduce social justice issues at the earliest opportunity, specifically during early childhood education. This review focuses on qualitative studies from 2019–2024 that focus on the need to incorporate social justice into early childhood education, including the challenges and successes. Key focus areas include curriculum development, supplementary materials, educator roles, and the role of school leadership. The findings show young children understand social justice issues at their developmental level, and that educators need to be equipped advocates to foster this understanding. There is also a need to focus on implementing a social justice curriculum that will have a positive influence on students and their families, as well as educators, with the goal of increasing awareness of social issues and promoting a more inclusive and equitable society.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.017
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover EducationSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207