MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994405758 · doi:10.1177/1086296x10397870

Warning

2011· article· en· W1994405758 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Literacy Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeInterpretation (philosophy)Perspective (graphical)Consistency (knowledge bases)MetafictionPedagogyPsychologyMathematics educationVisual artsComputer scienceLiteratureArtArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article features a case study of the written and illustrative text produced by one Grade 7 student, Stefinia, and discusses the metaleptic transgressions evident in the book she created as the culminating activity of a research project. Stefinia was a participant in a classroom-based study that explored how developing students’ knowledge of literary and illustrative elements affects their understanding, interpretation, and analysis of picturebooks and graphic novels, and the subsequent creation of their own print, multimodal texts. As well as being informed by narrative theory and metafiction, the research was framed by an ecological perspective on teaching and learning in classrooms. During a 10-week period, Stefinia participated in interdependent activities that offered her opportunities to learn about metafictive devices, some art elements, and a few compositional principles of graphic novels. Stefinia read and wrote responses to several picturebooks and four graphic novels; engaged in small group, peer-led discussions about the literature; and received explicit instruction about particular literary, illustrative, and compositional devices and techniques. She had the opportunity to apply and represent her learning by creating her own multimodal print text as the culminating activity of the study. The content analysis of Stefinia’s written and illustrative text focuses on her use of various metafictive devices that disrupted narrative structures or ontological boundaries in her multimodal book. The findings reveal how Stefinia’s participation and engagement in a particular classroom community of practice affected her learning of the content and concepts under study.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.422
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.003 · 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