MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765984372

Understanding Play in a Bilingual Family Literacy Program

2017· article· en· W2765984372 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicola Friedrich, Zipporah Devadas

Bibliographic record

Venue2017 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily literacyRefugeeLiteracyEthnographyImmigrationPedagogyResource (disambiguation)PsychologySociologyGender studiesPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although researchers have documented and discussed the use of play as pedagogy within primary classrooms, there is scant discussion regarding its use in family literacy programs. The purpose of this paper is to describe the enactment of play within a bilingual family literacy program for Karen refugee parents/caregivers and their pre-school aged children. Data, which includes an analysis of the family literacy program resource and field notes of observations of the play activity of three Karen mothers and their children within the program, were drawn from a larger ethnographic case study to document and describe the literacy practices of resettled Karen refugee families as they participated in the program, Parents as Literacy Supporters in Immigrant and Refugee Communities, in an small urban setting in western Canada. An analysis of the data suggests that play as it was structured and enacted in the program at this site was primarily educational during which the mothers drew from their own cultural models of learning as they engaged with their children in literacy-related activities structured by program facilitators. These findings will inform teachers of parents

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.120 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2017 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of EducationSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207