Addressing Complexities in Early Childhood Education and Care: The Relationships among Paradigms, Policies, and Children's Rights to Participate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation contributes to the field of Early Childhood Education and Care studies by providing the in-depth theoretical, document, and empirical analyses. The three types of analysis aim to build a case for the practical utilization of the critical paradigm. The critical paradigm is understood as a driving force for early childhood pedagogy which empowers educators, policy-makers, and academic scholars to apply a practical change in the field while acknowledging and sustaining the young childrenâ s right to actively participate in matters related to their education and well-being. In this venue, the thesis provides (i) a thorough and productive analysis of the paradigmatic discussions presently available in the field of early childhood education; (ii) an argument for the practical application of the critical paradigm; (iii) an application of the paradigmatic debates to early childhood curricular and policy documents; (iv) and an empirical evidence from the field which has not been documented before and which gives insights to changes needed in policy directions and the preparation of pre-service early childhood educators.
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 | 0.040 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".