MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923160824 · doi:10.1177/183693910803300305

A Collaborative Approach to Literacy

2008· article· en· W2923160824 on OpenAlexaff
Jodi Streelasky

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Early Childhood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyInner cityFamily literacyEmergent literacyPsychologyPedagogySociologyEarly childhoodProject commissioningDevelopmental psychologyEarly childhood educationPublishingMathematics educationPolitical scienceSocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MAKIN AND JONES DIAZ (2002) suggest that young children's early literacy is most strongly supported when early childhood educators, children's families and the wider community develop shared understandings about literacy —what counts, what is valued and validated, and whose voices are heard and whose voices are silent. Researchers such as Haas Dyson (1993), Kress (1997), and Stein (2003) argue that young children's literacy experiences comprise much more than developing the conventional processes of written language, but also include their use of a range of multiple semiotic symbol systems. This article will explore young children's constructions of literacy, and reveal the important role family members (e.g. parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents) and school staff (e.g. teachers, Elders, speech and language pathologists) play in mediating young children's literacy learning and development.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0030.022
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of Early ChildhoodSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207