MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7107966476 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/nxe8y

Including children’s perspectives in program evaluation: A scoping review protocol

2025· other· W7107966476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData collectionThematic analysisProtocol (science)Grey literatureQualitative propertyEthical issuesResearch ethicsNarrative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Young children’s perspectives are essential in evaluating early learning and childcare (ELCC) programs, yet data collection methods to ethically and effectively include their voices are underdeveloped. With increasing public investment in Canadian ELCC, understanding evaluation practices that meaningfully engage children aged 0–6 is critical. Objectives: This scoping review aims to map and describe the range of data collection methods used to engage young children’s opinions and perspectives in program evaluations, identify settings where children’s perspectives are included, and highlight ethical considerations reported in these evaluations. Eligibility Criteria: Peer-reviewed evaluation studies published in English that incorporate data collection and reporting of perspectives from children aged six and under within any program or service setting will be included. Grey literature, non-evaluative studies, and studies focusing on older children or adult proxies will be excluded. Information Sources: Searches will be conducted in four electronic databases (SCOPUS, ERIC, APA PsycInfo, Child Development and Adolescent Studies) and supplemented with Google Scholar. Searches will be restricted to peer-reviewed English-language publications. Charting Methods: Study selection, data extraction, and charting will be conducted by multiple reviewers using Covidence software. Data extracted will include data collection methods, program settings, ethical issues, and participant details. Synthesized findings of descriptive numerical summaries and qualitative thematic analysis will be included. Results: Results will present an overview of data collection methods relevant for evaluation that engage young children’s perspectives and outline program contexts where these methods were used. The result will include reported ethical considerations, accompanied by tables and narrative summaries. Conclusions: The review will inform evaluators and program providers on current practices and gaps regarding young children’s involvement in evaluations, guiding future research and culturally appropriate evaluation methods. Funding: No external funding.

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 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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.034
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0210.014
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.006

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.411 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207