MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4248722250 · doi:10.20361/g23k6q

Editorial

2015· editorial· en· W4248722250 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lynne Wiltse, Joanne De Groot

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Deakin Review of Children s Literature · 2015
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueThemes in Literature Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPleasureLiteracyReading (process)Class (philosophy)PsychologyLibrary scienceSociologyMathematics educationMedia studiesPedagogyComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It is our pleasure to be contributing to this editorial for The Deakin Review of Children’s Literature:My name is Lynne Wiltse and I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Elementary Education at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta (Canada). I teach courses in language and literacy and children’s literature, and have eagerly read each issue of The Deakin since its inception in 2011. I have made sure to introduce my students to this valuable resource. For example, I have the undergraduate students in my children’s literature course undertake an assignment which requires them to explore the site in detail and compare it to its predecessor, the Deakin Newsletter. I was intrigued when I came across the special issue that featured Joanne de Groot’s teacher-librarian students recommending “great new books.” At the time, I was teaching a graduate course, Children's Literature in the Elementary School (EDEL 510). I thought how I would love to have my students involved in such an initiative. The next time I was due to teach the course, I contacted the editorial team to discuss the possibility. As it happened, Joanne had done the same. The editorial team kindly offered for us to share a special double issue; my students would review books that are geared primarily for an elementary audience, while Joanne's class would review books that are intended for a secondary audience.I made space in the course so that my students, all of whom are practicing teachers, could have the invaluable opportunity to review contemporary books for children. I was delighted with the diverse range of books my students selected for review. In our course, we discussed the importance of authentic writing opportunities for children; this certainly proved to be an authentic writing experience for my students, one that they embraced with enthusiasm! We are very excited to see their published reviews in The Deakin, and we are looking forward to reading the reviews of the students in EDEL 546 as well. I thank Kim Frail and the rest of the editorial team of The Deakin Review of Children’s Literature for their support of this special issue.Lynne WiltseAssociate ProfessorDepartment of Elementary EducationUniversity of Albertaemail: lynne.wiltse@ualberta.caMy name is Joanne de Groot and I am an instructor in the Teacher-Librarianship by Distance Learning (TLDL) program at the University of Alberta. Students in this class are teachers and teacher-librarians from across Canada, particularly British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nunavut. We even had a student in EDEL 546 who is currently teaching in Kathmandu!EDEL 546 is an Introduction to Resources for Children and Young Adults and provides students with an introduction to literature and other print and digital media for young people in schools and libraries. Throughout this course, students are given opportunities to learn how to select and use resources in their classrooms and school libraries. The major assignment asks small groups of students to develop proposals to build a focused collection of resources for a school library. This group project required students to select an area or topic and then create a selection list of resources they would purchase to build their collection, identify selection criteria, and provide links to professional reviews. Students were also asked to write professional reviews of two titles published in 2013 or 2014 that would be suitable for a high school audience. This term’s groups focused on topics such as high interest/low vocabulary titles, graphic novels, pleasure or recreational reading, and Immigrant Voices. Many of the reviews submitted for this project are now included in this issue of The Deakin. The task of writing reviews that might be published in a reviewing journal made this assignment more relevant and interesting for the students and I am very pleased to be able to share their work with you now.Joanne de GrootAdjunct Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Elementary EducationUniversity of Albertaemail: degroot@ualberta.ca

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,746
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,000

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,030
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0080,004
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2540,168

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,252
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Deakin Review of Children s LiteratureMême sujetThemes in Literature AnalysisTravaux en français237 207