MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1511423460 · doi:10.20360/g2ms4h

Community Literacy: Commodifying Children's Spaces

2004· article· en· W1511423460 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Linda Wason‐Ellam, Angela Ward, Cynthia Fey, Anna-Leah King, Brenda Gilchrist, Lynne Townsend

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracySociologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across families of many cultures, literacy is used in a wide variety of ways.Literacy is described as a set of social and cultural practices, not simply a skill learned through formal schooling and detached from other social constructs (Street, 1984(Street, , 1995)).Family life is a distinct domain for literacy that is intricately woven into the everyday stream of activities where the purposes, values, and the roles families take may differ from the cultural capital required by the formal literacy that children need for success in schooling (Gates, 1997;Heath, 1983; Hicks, 2000; Purcell-Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988;Valdés, 1996;Wason-Ellam, 2001), a space outside of the private, vernacular literacies of family and the community.Although literacy learning occurs in the family's immediate environment, it cannot be considered apart from the community spaces that connect the family across boundaries or the overlapping social world of relationships and texts that are embedded within the community (Moje, 2000).Community literacy appears to be a complex and dynamic dimension comprising a family's social, geographical, and economic spaces and the extent to which those spaces may be affected by the family members' access to services, resources, and information.Other researchers expand the notion of literacy in community spaces as focusing on the social and cultural capital that literacy affords (Bourdieu, 1986), the funds of knowledge that families possess (Moll, 1992), the community influences, (Neuman & Celano, 2001) or the vernacular literacies, that is, the household-centered social networks across which families share resources, skills, and local knowledge that are articulated in the community (Barton & Hamilton, 1998).In this sense, c.Language and Literacy.2004.6(1).www.educ.queensu.ca/~landl 2 community literacies are the local and the globally situated practices that become the building blocks of learning as they underpin and support the more valued literacies that schools teach.Often, community literacy is described as reading documents such as signs, notices, posters, advertisements, letters, or schedules of recreational activities.Or it may be the reading practice associated with participation in neighborhood activities or cultural events in libraries, book stores, and childcare centers.Embedded within these intersecting practices are opportunities for children to learn and develop through observation and apprenticeship (Lave & Wenger, 1991) as they see others within the community use reading and writing in their daily lives for a variety of purposes.At present, what community literacy research may not make explicit is changing layers of literacy located in the "kid networks" (Nespor, 1997) or child-centred spaces.These layers of literacy and layers of community serve as a powerful role in children's learning and are articulated through a variety of interactive linkages.The layers flourish in the decontextualized spaces found in representations (books, games, leisure activities) and the virtual spaces transmitted through technologies (television, films, computers, and videos).Whether shopping in the community or watching television, children access layers of literacy globally from media spaces often embodied with inanimate elements.Sometimes it may be a book linked to a television show such as Dora the Explorer, a media character toy from the Disney movie, Finding Nemo, or a Nintendo game, Super Mario that connects the child to a virtual reality.From this perspective, the question to ask about community literacy practices is how do children engage in social and cultural activities that involve texts that are spread across mass distributed images or representational spaces (Nespor, 1997, p. 169) within virtual communities and readily become integral to home literacy practices?c.Language and Literacy.2004.6(1).www.educ.queensu.ca/~landl

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.018
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0010.014
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.395 · 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and Literacy→Same topicMultilingual Education and Policy→French-language works237,207→