MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029568272 · doi:10.1598/jaal.54.4.3

Aboriginal Students Engaging and Struggling With Critical Multiliteracies

2010· article· en· W2029568272 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fatima Pirbhai‐Illich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyAction researchPedagogyCritical literacyPsychologyMathematics educationSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on findings from a school‐based action research project with aboriginal adolescent students attending an alternative school in Canada. As a Freirean response to these marginalized students' school failures, the researcher engaged students in a critical multiliteracies approach to language and literacy learning. Based on participant observation, video recordings, teacher journals, and field notes, key findings from this study indicated that (a) students were more likely to engage in school literacy projects when rules about how to speak in school and what topics could be discussed in school were suspended, (b) students' literacy levels benefited from a critical multiliteracies project that asked to them to draw on their own cultural funds of knowledge and use and develop the computer technologies skills they were interested in, and (c) students were more likely to engage in critical discussion of social issues when they chose the topic for 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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations59
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent & Adult LiteracySame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207