MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913345800 · doi:10.1515/applirev-2018-0119

Creativity and criticality: Reimagining narratives through translanguaging and transmediation

2019· article· en· W2913345800 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ron Darvin

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Linguistics Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranslanguagingCreativityNarrativeSociologyAdaptation (eye)GlobalizationMultimodalityPower (physics)LinguisticsPsychologyPedagogySocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper asserts that creativity and criticality are interlocked constructs that converge through the shared impetus of challenging existing norms, practices and relations of power. Drawing on data from a student YouTube adaptation of a play about Filipino migrants from a literature textbook, it examines how high school students in the Philippines use their linguistic, multimodal and digital resources to retell a prescribed narrative from their own perspectives and contexts. By conducting a multimodal discourse analysis of this video, this paper demonstrates how these youth engage with translanguaging and transmediation, reshaping the meanings of the primary text while imagining spaces like Canada from their own fixed locations in the Philippines. Through these creative and critical processes, they are able to challenge the boundaries of both word and world, and assert their own voices in the discourse of migration and globalization.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.048
Scholarly communication0.0190.017
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.405 · 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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Linguistics ReviewSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207