Literacy as material engagement: the abstract, tangible and mundane ingredients of childhood reading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores questions that arise when we consider the things that make literacy possible. How do they interact with ordinary household objects and activities, and what intertextual implications arise from such mundane interactions? The concept of dual representation suggests that some objects may have both a physical and a symbolic existence; a book is a thing that sits on a shelf but it is also a representation of an imaginary content. It is commonplace to think of electronic texts as having only a virtual life, but they also reside within an object that has a tangible household existence. Objects are very often managed by hands, and this article explores the role of the hands in directing attention and in connecting the objects of literacy to their surrounding environment. It draws on an extended study of one child's access to analogue literacy material. Comparing that access to the repertoire of contemporary children, it suggests that we may better understand the role of literacy in our lives if we attend to the tangible as well as the abstract associations the objects of literacy evoke and if we think of literacy as a form of material as well as intellectual engagement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".