MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1925743302 · doi:10.20355/c5fw22

A Critical Review of Immigrant Children’s Literacies and Identities from a Deleuzian Perspective

2012· review· en· W1925743302 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Issues in Education · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationSociocultural perspectiveLiteracySociologyPerspective (graphical)Identity (music)Gender studiesCreativitySociocultural evolutionPedagogyPsychologyAnthropologyAestheticsPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines how Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizome concept can be applied to educational research about immigrant children’s literacies and identities. It explores the intersection of literacy and identity encountered in sociocultural and poststructural (particularly a Deleuzian perspective) paradigms, reviews studies on immigrant children’s literacy and identity from these two perspectives, and discusses challenges posed by each. The rhizome concept advances a new way of research about immigrant children, who are often marginalized by the dominant school culture. This new way of research emphasizes literacy as a process of becoming, highlighting immigrant children’s multilinguality, creativity, and intersections of multiple literacies across school, home and community and across global and local contexts and the fluidity of their identities. The paper finally calls for an awareness of the complications, connections and multiplicities that literacy research confronts concerning immigrant children and puts forward some pedagogical implications.

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)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary Issues in EducationSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207