Websites as civic tools for advocacy: An examination of two Canadian adult literacy sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research study explores how web-based technologies might enhance the ways in which not-for-profit adult education organizations engage in advocacy practices in the field of literacy education. Using postmodern policy analysis as a framework, it examines the affordances and limitations of the web-based tools used by two national literacy organizations in Canada, considering how civic agency and advocacy are represented, mediated, and discursively constructed. Discussion of narrative framing, persuasive technologies, and policy tactics offers potential insights into conceiving of how knowledge-dissemination and civic participation can be advanced in new ways. The paper concludes by exploring how particular online engagement strategies might advance the advocacy and policy work of these organizations, and more effectively realize literacy education goals. Résumé Cette étude de recherche explore comment les technologies à base de web pourraient améliorer les voies dont les organisations sans but lucratif de lʼeducation des adultes se livrent aux pratiques de plaidoyer dans le domaine de alphabetisation des adultes. En utilisant lʼanalyse de politique post-moderne comme un cadre, il examine lʼ’affordances et des restrictions des instruments à base de web utilisés par deux organisations Canadien de alphabétisation, en réfléchissant comment lʼagence civique et le plaidoyer sont représentés, négociés et construits discursivement. La discussion d’histoire que les technologies encadrantes, persuasives et la tactique de politique offrent des pénétrations potentielles dans le fait de concevoir de comment la diffusion de connaissance et la participation civique peuvent être avancés de nouvelles façons. Le papier se termine en explorant comment les stratégies dʼ’engagement en ligne particulières pourraient avancer le plaidoyer et le travail de politique de ces organisations et réaliser plus efficacement des buts de alphabétisation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".