MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505148695 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.981

Literacy at a distance in multilingual contexts: Issues and challenges

2011· article· en· W1505148695 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine I Ofulue

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Education and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyMultilingualismDistance educationInformation and Communications TechnologyInformation literacyICTSPedagogySociologyPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomic growthMathematics educationPsychologyWorld Wide WebEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Literacy is perhaps the most fundamental skill required for effective participation in education (formal and non-formal) for national development. At the same time, the choice of language for literacy is a complex issue in multilingual societies like Nigeria. This paper examines the issues involved, namely language policy, language and teacher development, and the role of distance education and information and communication technologies (ICTs), in making literacy accessible in as many languages as possible. Two distance learning literacy projects are presented as case studies and the lessons learned are discussed. The findings of this study suggest that although there is evidence of growing accessibility to ICTs like mobile phones, their use and success to increase access to literacy in the users’ languages are yet to be attained and maximised. The implication of the lessons learned should be relevant to other multilingual nations that seek the goal of increasing access to learning and promoting development so as to harvest economic benefits.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicAfrican Education and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207