MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766139691 · doi:10.1002/jaal.711

A Queer Critical Media Literacies Framework in a Digital Age

2017· article· en· W2766139691 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lisa van Leent, Kathy A. Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsQueerLesbianQueer theoryMedia literacySociologyPedagogyPerspective (graphical)LiteracyIdentity (music)GlobeTransgenderSexual identityPsychologyGender studiesHuman sexualityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Media literacy skills are focal for many educators across the globe in an age of ubiquitous access to the Internet and the rapid circulation of digital texts. A critical media literacies perspective is often a key element in teaching adolescents to read a range of texts. A queer critical media literacies pedagogy supports a social justice agenda aimed at addressing inequalities in education for youths who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and queer (LGBTQ+), with the + accounting for other identities, such as asexual, agender, and questioning. Queer theories provide the basis of a new pedagogical model aimed at empowering educators to guide young adolescents in identity formation as they navigate a range of content. The model is presented as a queer critical media literacies framework aimed at directly supporting the work of teachers in classrooms, including illustrative key questions, learning experiences, and related teaching resources.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.037
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent & Adult LiteracySame topicGender, Feminism, and MediaFrench-language works237,207