Journey With Me: Wanderings and Wonderings Through Childhoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dominant assumptions and views of children and childhood inform and guide educational policy and practice and have worked to institutionalize meanings of children and childhood. Within the sociology of childhood, literature has challenged these assumptions by recognizing the lived realities of children as contextually specific and historically dynamic, and by acknowledging the existence of multiple situations and perspectives of childhood (James & James, 2012; Mayall, 2002; Prout & James, 1997), however, these understandings are majoritively considered from an adult perspective. This qualitative study welcomes children’s perceptions and narratives into discussions of children and childhoods by exploring five children’s perspectives and narratives. This study is influenced by the Mosaic approach, “a multi-method, polyvocal approach that brings together different perspectives in order to create with children an image of their worlds” (Clark, 2017, p. 17). Semi-structured conversations, photography and child-led walking tours of their neighbourhoods provided the participants with an opportunity to express their thoughts, opinions, and retellings of their own lived experiences. Working within a social-critical paradigm and underpinned by the sociology of childhood, critical childhood studies, and post-structuralism, the aim of this inquiry is to explore from the perspectives of children themselves. Employing poetic inquiry alongside a thematic narrative analysis the child participants’ narratives are explored through the discussions of adult/child constructs; freedoms, restrictions and resistance; relationships; and been, being and becoming, and their decision-making and influence on curriculum. In conclusion, recommendations for future practices and areas for further research are discussed. Positioning children, rather than adults, as the storytellers of their lived realities this study works to de-objectifying children in conversations of children and childhood and seeks to acknowledge children as active and valued members of society, and important tellers of their own stories.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".