Numeracy Programming for Children in Canadian Public Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proposed study was conducted to analyze thevariety of programs offered by public libraries inCanada for children to develop their literacy skills,particularly numeracy literacy skills. The findingsincluded in the paper are based on the thematicanalysis of information included on individuallibraries’ websites. Key findings suggest that althoughCanadian public libraries have a few numeracy skillsprograms in their repertoire, there is a need forgreater programming to develop these skills.L’étude proposée a été menée pour analyser lavariété de programmes offerts par les bibliothèquespubliques au Canada, destinés au développementdes compétences, en particulier en littératie et ennumératie chez les enfants. Les conclusions figurantdans l’étude sont basées sur l’analyse thématiquedes informations présentes sur les sites Webindividuels des bibliothèques. Les principalesconclusions suggèrent que si les bibliothèquespubliques canadiennes ont bien quelquesprogrammes de compétences en numératie dans leurrépertoire, il y a un besoin de programmationsupplémentaire pour développer ces compétences.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".