Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes a “critical literacy” approach to teaching an introductory course in academic writing to a group of students socially marginalized by poverty and prejudice. In this approach, the author asks students to identify research areas of personal interest to themselves by drawing on their own lives to generate meaningful topics, to engage in critical dialogue about their work, and to write in a scholarly style without becoming alienated from their work. She also welcomes students’ critical observations on their own experience of dominant culture and invites them to scrutinize the academic world they are entering as an institution that participates fully in systems of privilege and power. In her experience, much of the work done by students engaged in a such an approach demonstrates a higher degree of the critical insight and serious-minded knowledge-building valued in academia than is normally seen in introductory writing courses. She articulates a rationale for using this empowerment-based method of teaching academic writing in the face of calls for a return to traditional methods, and provide an analysis centred in Critical Literacy theory to account for its successes and challenges.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".