MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755754677 · doi:10.17161/iallt.v38i2.8463

Breaking down borders to multiliteracy

2006· article· en· W2755754677 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurrenderPower pointSimple (philosophy)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)CurriculumCognitionCognitive scienceSociologyPedagogyMathematics educationPsychologyEpistemologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his book entitle Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture toTechnology, Postman {1992) raised serious concerns regarding theinvading power of computer technology and rightly argued that weshould seriously consider "what other humans skills and traditionsare being lost by immersion in a computer culture, (122). Here Iwould like to take an opposing point of view and consider the beneficialpower that computers may have in the particular case oflearning to write in a second language. My assumption is based onmy experience as an educator and as a parent, and my simple desireto facilitate learning and cognition without abolishing traditionaleducational methods, such as pen and paper in the case of writing.In this article I will review recent research in CALL technologies forL2 writing and discuss the opportunity of combining them withconcepts of multiliteracy as well as curriculum design.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.326 · 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