Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns have been expressed about assessment results that report girls outscoring boys on standardized achievement testing in reading and writing and boys outscoring girls in mathematics and science. This study explored how Western Canadian rural farm boys understand and practice multiple literacies in their everyday lives and what it means for them to be ‘literate’ in today’s world. The research was a qualitative ethnographic study of the culture of six rural farm boys. Thick description was used to explain the event and the context of the event. The fieldwork involved collecting print and digital artifacts that depicted the boys’ literacy practices and conducting interviews and conversations. The boys lead very literate lives. However, their notions of what literacy is are rooted in the ideas of literacy as a technical skill and literacy as school knowledge. The boys, who did not see themselves as readers, engaged in transactional reading and writing outside of school, motivated by personal and group interests and by a curiosity to learn knowledge about the world in which they live, a need to be with their peers, and a desire to build social capital in their settings. The boys used literacy to do the social work of gender, of defining themselves, and of placing themselves in their families and peer groups and among their schoolmates with a gendered identity. A gender-based disconnect in reading and writing activities has emerged from our schools. If we want students to embrace school-based print literacy and to make it part of their lives, then competence is simply not enough. Educators must find ways to help students discover pleasure in reading and writing well by offering them assignments and opportunities to recognize that what brings them pleasure is connected to experience, competence, and challenge. The chasm between school literacy and literacy for personal purposes demonstrates the need for curriculum designers to find ways to utilize the digital mode of communication. Curriculum writers must begin to view at literacy as a social practice rather than as a set of technical skills for these rural male adolescents to see themselves as literate people.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".