MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105772771 · doi:10.1353/sls.2014.0002

Rethinking Literacy: Broadening Opportunities for Visual Learners

2014· article· en· W2105772771 on OpenAlexaff
Marlon Kuntze, Debbie Golos, Charlotte Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueSign language studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyPsychologyVisual literacyReading (process)MediationPerspective (graphical)Information literacyCritical literacyVariety (cybernetics)PedagogyLinguisticsComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article outlines a working model that is grounded in visual learning; it is a model for facilitating deaf children's acquisition of literacy. In our view, literacy is more than merely reading. It also encompasses the acquisition of knowledge and the development of cognitive skills that one needs for thinking, comprehending, and communicating. The perspective espoused by the proponents of "multil iteracies" is utilized to fashion a model that explains how deaf children's literacy development may be supported through ASL and various visual modes of learning. The model incorporates components of ASL acquisition, visual engagement, emergent literacy, social mediation of English print, literacy and Deaf culture, and a variety of media. Our goal is to broaden the current dialogue on the literacy development of deaf children by offering a model that is based on a fairly holistic concept of literacy, insights from a wide array of research findings and theoretical constructs, and recognition of the need to capitalize on deaf students' natural tendency to learn via the visual mode.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations69
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSign language studiesSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207