MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548469526

NOTIONS OF LITERACY IN THE K–12 SCHOOL SYSTEM IN BRITISH COLUMBIA EDUCATION SINCE 2002: A CONTESTED TERRAIN

2016· article· en· W2548469526 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jeff Park, Gérald Fallon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Policies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyAccountabilityGovernment (linguistics)Sociocultural evolutionSociologyPoliticsEducation policyPedagogyPublic policyPublic administrationPolicy analysisPolitical sciencePublic relationsHigher educationLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing literacy competencies has become a central component of educational policy in British Columbia (BC), with policies calling for province-wide assessment and school accountability. Based on the critical policy analysis (Blaikie & Soussan, 2000) of provincial and school district documents, complemented by semi-structured interviews of senior government officials, district-based administrators, and literacy coordinators, this article discusses how the synergistic effect of the policy discourses of accountability and assessment framed the ways of thinking, conceptually and practically, about literacy mainly in terms of its instrumental value in holding public schools accountable to performance indicators. The article concludes by discussing the necessity of redefining literacy to challenge the view of literacy as a mere set of technical and human skills for economic growth to shift the dialogue toward policy alternatives that view literacy as set of capabilities for sociocultural and political change.

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)0.003
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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0200.031
Scholarly communication0.0150.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Educational Administration and PolicySame topicGlobal Educational Policies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207