MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923166144 · doi:10.1386/eta.15.1.51_1

A review of the Common European Framework of Reference for Visual Literacy – Prototype (CEFR-VL)

2019· review· en· W2923166144 on OpenAlexaff
Fiona Blaikie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education through Art · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedCraftFraming (construction)LiteracyCertificateConstructiveCurriculumPedagogyVisual literacySociologyPolitical scienceVisual artsComputer scienceEngineeringArtCivil engineeringProcess (computing)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Common European Framework of Reference for Visual Literacy (CEFR-VL) the researchers present competencies for teaching, learning and assessing art, conceptualized as visual literacy, offering constructive possibilities for modifications and implementation in Europe and potentially globally. The CEFR-VL is comparable with other international approaches to framing curriculum and assessment approaches, including the General Certificate in Secondary Education in England, International Baccalaureate, Advanced Placement, the National Standards created by the National Art Education Association in the United States, and design and craft focused practices in Europe. Given multiple incarnations of art, design and craft making worldwide, articulating what visual literacy means, along with re-shaping and revising the framework in an ongoing way, offers a helpful infrastructure for use by the global community of art educators, creators, students and scholars who are committed to the visual and to visual sensitivity, and to situated meanings and interpretations of visual and material cultures of production and consumption.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Education through ArtSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207