MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167821370 · doi:10.2304/pfie.2007.5.1.84

Literacy is Just Reading and Writing, isn't it? The Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test and its Press Coverage

2007· article· en· W2167821370 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura Elizabeth Pinto, Megan Boler, Trevor Norris

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Futures in Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperLiteracyRepresentation (politics)Reading (process)Inclusion (mineral)DemocracySociologyDiversity (politics)Test (biology)Media studiesPolitical sciencePublic relationsPedagogySocial sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines how the public discourse of print news media defines and shapes the representation of the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) based on coverage in three primary newspapers between 1998 and 2004. The data were analysed using qualitative and quantitative measures to identify types of coverage, themes, and inclusion/exclusion of voices. The analysis, which is framed by discourse about conceptions of literacy relating to Dewey's democratic vision for the press, suggests some disappointments on the measure of democratic representation and participation. The article concludes that, if the media is to represent the diversity of voices and provide a wide range of views so as to fulfil its democratic responsibility as envisioned by Dewey, a wider debate over representations of literacy must occur and more perspectives and voices must be included in newspaper coverage.

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)0.022
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 score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Futures in EducationSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207