MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567420195 · doi:10.20360/g20027

Imagination and Literacy Instruction: A Content Analysis of Literature within Literacy-Related Publications

2017· article· en· W2567420195 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carole Pelttari

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyNarrativeReading (process)Content (measure theory)PsychologyImaginationPedagogyContent analysisMathematics educationLiteratureLinguisticsSociologyCognitive psychologyArtSocial sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through content analysis of research conducted during the last 25 years, this paper identifies five vital uses of imagination within literacy instruction. First, readers use imagination to comprehend text. Second, readers use imagination to engage in the world depicted through the text. Third, readers use imagination to make sense of both narrative and expository texts. Fourth, readers use imagination to learn about self and others. Finally, readers benefit from instruction regarding the use of imagination to enhance reading. A compilation of instructional methods are presented. This analysis establishes the need for classroom instruction connecting imagination and literacy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and LiteracySame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207