Myth and Misguided Faith? Women's Experiences in a Literacy Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article portrays the contextualized experiences of five women of Mexican American heritage within a literacy program. In-depth interviewing and shadowing within an ethnographic, feminist perspective were used to collect their stories. From inductive analysis of these data a structure of myth framework emerged, which was then used to examine the women's stones of their il/literacy journey, the terrains of magical consciousness, and naive consciousness toward possible critical consciousness (praxis). Résumé Cet article décrit les expériences contextuelles de cinq femmes d'origine mexicano-américaine impliquées dans un programme d'alphabétisation. Des entrevues structurées et des données ethnographiques vues sous un angle féministe furent utilisées pour constituer leur profil. Une analyse inductive de ces données a mené à la facture d'un cadre de référence qui fut ensuite utilisé pour examiner les profils de l'alphabétisation de ces femmes dans leur cheminement vers un nouvel épanouissement et un monde de découvertes et de pratiques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".