Shaping Literacy: Evolution and trends in Canada's literacy research since the mid-1980s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to understand the evolution in adult literacy research since the founding of The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education and the rise of the contemporary knowledge base in Canadian adult literacy. Three primary research questions guided the investigation, which employed a critical discourse analysis (CDA) method. A text analysis grid was constructed and used across four databases representing Canadian literacy scholarship. Findings suggest that seven metaphors can be used to depict the current state of literacy scholarship, and a triangle of three solitudes—academic researchers, practitioners, and government sponsors—is presented as the current status of the research literature. Questions are raised on the inherent challenges for literacy in the 21st century. Résumé La présente étude vise à comprendre d’une part, l’évolution dans la recherche sur la littératie des adultes depuis la création de la Revue être utilisées pour déchiffrer l’état actuel de l’érudition en littératie; un triagle de trois parties prenantes, à savoir les chercheurs universitaires, les formateurs et les commanditaires gouvernementaux, représente le statut actuel des écrits scientifiques. Les questions posées touchent les défis inhérents en matière de littératie au 21e siècle. canadienne pour l’étude de l’éducation des adultes et d’autre part, le développement de la base de connaissances actuelle liée à la littératie des adultes au Canada. Trois questions principales de recherche ont guidé l’étude qui fait appel à une méthode d’analyse critique du discours. Une grille d’analyse de texte a été développée et utilisée avec quatre bases de données qui représentent l’érudition dans le domaine de la littératie canadienne. Les résultats démontrent que sept métaphores peuvent
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".