MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108232818 · doi:10.1177/1367877912474553

Critical literacy lessons for the intellectual properties of learning from Bede and Alcuin of York

2013· article· en· W2108232818 on OpenAlexaff
John Willinsky, Johanne Provençal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cultural Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectual propertyLiteracyScholarshipCritical literacySociologyOralityIntellectual historyInformation literacyPedagogyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of intellectual property has much to contribute to cultural literacy. Intellectual property rights are crucial to issues of access to and economics of research and scholarship, and how such rights are associated with learning and the work of the learned is relevant to critical literacy. To begin to establish how intellectual property has long played a role in the critical shaping of learning, this article considers the 8th-century examples provided by Bede and Alcuin of York in the medieval monastic development of learning in the West. These examples illustrate how a cultural history of the proto-concept of intellectual property can illuminate the special and distinct status of learning in the production and circulation of knowledge. Bede and Alcuin of York are considered as medieval historical precedents for an opening up of literacy and learning that is relevant to digital-era issues over long-established tensions between a cloistered literacy (and learning) that is placed at a remove from the world and an opening up of literacy, learning and access to knowledge.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.022
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207