MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995697772 · doi:10.2304/elea.2007.4.3.367

Teaching Writing in Five Canadian Provinces: A New Literacies Analysis

2007· article· en· W1995697772 on OpenAlex
Shelley Stagg Peterson, Jill McClay

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueE-Learning and Digital Media · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationPsychologyPedagogySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents the results of the initial stage of research on grades 4–8 teachers' writing instruction within rural and urban contexts across Canada. Teachers' goals and their use of digital technologies and multimedia are examined within rural and urban schools in five eastern provinces. Through half-hour telephone interviews with 54 teachers, the authors found that perceptions of the value of writing within their communities and the kinds of support for writing that students were given outside school divided along teachers' perceptions of students' social class lines. Language spoken in students' homes also influenced teachers' goals for their students. Only 5 of the 54 teachers interviewed provide opportunities for students to compose on computers. In most teachers' classrooms, computers were used for retyping drafts, and often used at home, to create ‘good copies' that students handed in for grades.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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