MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511143446 · doi:10.1177/2381336916661519

Youth Arts, Media, and Critical Literacies as Forms of Public Engagement in the Local/Global Interface

2016· article· en· W2511143446 on OpenAlexaff
Theresa Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueLiteracy Research Theory Method and Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedPublicsSociologyLiteracyFutures contractPoliticsThe artsRelation (database)SkepticismMedia studiesPolitical sciencePublic relationsPedagogyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides a reanalysis of a multisited case study of youth arts, media, and critical literacy to theorize the role of networked and physical “publics” within which youth engage with issues they care about, making claims about their lived experiences. An understanding of the nature and role of publics is crucial to productive formulations of literacy research and pedagogies in schools, communities, and nations. The theorizations offered here, related to ethical and aesthetic public engagement, spatiality, and mobilities, focus on those moments when youth come together in community and educational sites to create counternarratives in relation to their lives and futures. Three examples of situated counternarratives are analyzed to illustrate how youth exhibit powerful engagements with discursive resources across spatial and material locations and with various publics, producing critical social and political analyses in the local/global interface that often go unrecognized or unrealized in educational contexts.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.035
Scholarly communication0.0140.011
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiteracy Research Theory Method and PracticeSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207