Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Viewing and Representing in the Middle Years” was a two-year project to investigate visual literacy in the English language arts classrooms of three teachers. These teachers tried a variety of approaches and were generally optimistic about the benefits of the increased inclusion of visual materials. They did, however, report a number of challenges in using viewing and representing approaches as part of their curriculum. Teachers’ previous experiences influenced their implementation of an expanded notion of literacy in English language arts, as did the influence of the university-based researcher conducting this investigation. L’article porte sur la visualisation et la representation dans les premieres annees du secondaire dans les cours d’arts langagiers en anglais. Trois enseignants ont essaye diverses approches. Bien qu’ils voyaient d’un bon œil le fait d’inclure davantage de materiel visuel, ils ont signale plusieurs difficultes reliees a l’utilisation d’approches de visualisation et de representation dans leurs programmes. Les experiences anterieures des enseignants, tout comme la presente recherche, ont exerce une influence sur leur facon d’implanter une notion elargie de litteratie dans les arts langagiers en anglais.
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 | 0.000 | 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".