Multiple Definitions of Reading: Why They Continue to Be Used in the Same Contexts, and What This Has Meant for Literacy Instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What literacy means has evolved significantly in recent decades, but even in the context of Quebec, where the provincial curriculum embraces a forward-thinking definition of literacy, multiple understandings of literacy and reading coexist within the same community. This article argues that how the concepts of reading and literacy are understood, and how best to teach them, continues to be framed within the boundaries set out by traditionally opposing research paradigms, and that these frameworks have further complicated the challenge of helping students become strong readers of print. With a specific focus on the reading of print, this article examines how these understandings differ and what this has meant for reading and literacy instruction. It is argued that a rethinking of the way that research informs pedagogy may further the benefits that the researcher-practitioner relationship brings to classroom practice.
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 | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".