Leer y escribir en español: una manera de mantener la L1 de inmigrantes mexicanos en Canadá
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basado en la idea de que las prácticas de lectoescritura son formas culturales de usar el lenguaje escrito (Barton et al. 2000), este trabajo examina las prácticas de lectoescritura en el hogar de cuatro familias mexicanas inmigrantes en el oeste de Canadá usando métodos etnográficos de investigación. Algunos de los resultados son que las prácticas de lectoescritura en el hogar son una manera en que los niños y sus padres pueden permanecer en contacto con su país de origen, con sus redes sociales y con su cultura; asimismo, son una manera de preservar y compartir sus prácticas culturales y la herencia cultural de su país de origen.\nBased on the idea that literacy practices are the cultural forms of using written language (Barton et al. 2000), this study examines home-literacy practices of four Mexican immigrant families living in the West of Canada. Data was collected through such ethnographic research methods as interviews, observations, field notes, and photographs. Some findings were that home-literacy practices were used by parents and children to keep in touch with their home country, their social networks, and their culture; furthermore, they are a way to preserve and share their cultural practices and their cultural heritage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".