MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117556554 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v21i1.236

Rethinking Literacy Education in New Times: Multimodality, Multiliteracies, & New Literacies

2011· article· en· W2117556554 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultimodalityLiteracyAnachronismPedagogySociologyCritical literacyDigital literacyMathematics educationPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents a theoretical overview of new fields of research, pedagogy, and practice in literacy education. In a digital, media-driven, globalized world, educators are faced with the challenge of mediating traditional notions of what it means to be literate (e.g., read and writing print-based texts) with new and ever-emerging skills and interests in technology and digital media. Focusing on a pilot study in Oakville, ON and a longitudinal research study in Sydney, Australia, we compel readers to think about literacy in a new light. Without a push to redefine literacy, educators run the risk of teaching and learning language and literacy skills in anachronistic paradigms and frameworks. While research has not been able to fully establish the impact of multimodal communication, it is essential that educators learn to use these different modes of communication to teach literacy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.241 · 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