MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416131036 · doi:10.1177/1476718x251391023

Pedagogists and educators engaging ethical-political dimensions of early childhood education

2025· article· en· W4416131036 on OpenAlexaffabout
Veronica Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kathleen Kummen, Meagan Montpetit, B. Denise Hodgins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Early Childhood Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedEarly childhood educationEarly childhoodQuality (philosophy)Work (physics)Situated learningEducational researchProfessional development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores how pedagogists (pedagogical leaders) and early childhood educators engage in ethical-political work within everyday practices in early childhood centers. We argue for modes of educator engagement that foster rich educational experiences while preserving the ethical-political dimensions of education. We draw on a project that focuses on educating educators to re-envision quality in Canadian early childhood education. The research is situated within postqualitative approaches that resist universal categories, attending instead to the situated, relational, and contingent nature of research. In a postqualitative manner, we offer four stories—educators and pedagogists working in the midst of complex circumstances, rethinking early childhood education’s lexicon, composing educational spaces, and forging situated curricula—that highlight the complexity of the educator-pedagogist relationship. The article emphasizes the need to rethink traditional professional learning models, with significant implications for early childhood education.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.051
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.383 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Early Childhood ResearchSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207