Defining Meaningful Literacy: Findings from a Socially-oriented Literacy Intervention for Adults with Developmental Disabilities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study is a qualitative analysis of the results of a literacy skills intervention with a group comprising of three individuals with Down syndrome and three individuals with other developmental disabilities. The intervention was developed to address the concern that individuals in this population are often only exposed to functional literacy experiences (i.e. those building only literacy skills required for daily functioning and survival), at the expense of more enriched experiences that engage personal meaning. As a result, it included both reading and writing activities designed to invite personal investment in literacy experiences. In this vein, the data collected derives primarily from the participant’s own writing, and has been supplemented with other qualitative measures (e.g. parental questionnaires, participant focus group responses, field notes). The current article discusses the impact and implications of this intervention for future literacy interventions of this kind, in terms of the themes, which emerged from these data; with a particular emphasis on the participants’ own experiences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it