MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149833692 · doi:10.3916/c32-2009-02-008

Implementing Mandates in Media Education: The Ontario Experience

2009· article· en· W2149833692 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carolyn Wilson, Barry L. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueComunicar · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsECW Press (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedia literacyCurriculumHumanitiesLiteracyGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceSociologyLiteracy educationPedagogyArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This analysis presents a report on media literacy education in Ontario. It provides an overview of the curriculum for media literacy that is mandated by the provincial government. Specifically, it describes various approaches for teaching about the media as well as the theory that underpins curriculum documents and classroom practices. The analysis also describes the work of key organizations and partnerships that helped prioritize media literacy education, and offers suggestions for the successful development and implementation of media literacy programs. The conclusion discusses the challenges and future directions for media literacy beyond the Ontario case, focusing on nine key tenets for success in its implementation worldwide. Este artículo expone un informe sobre la educación en alfabetización mediática en Ontario. Brinda una visión general del plan de estudios para la alfabetización mediática propuesta por el gobierno regional. Específicamente, describe varias aproximaciones para la enseñanza acerca de los medios, así como la teoría que apuntala los documentos del plan de estudios y las prácticas en el aula. También describe el trabajo de organizaciones y asociaciones clave que ayudaron a priorizar la educación en alfabetización mediática, y ofrece sugerencias para el desarrollo exitoso y la implementación de programas de alfabetización mediática. La conclusión discute los retos y el curso futuro de la alfabetización mediática más allá del caso Ontario, centrándose en nueve tesis clave para el éxito en su implementación en todo el mundo.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0270.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComunicarSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207