Towards a fully literate Canada: achieving national goals through a comprehensive pan-Canadian literacy strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'Towards a fully literate Canada' is the title that the Advisory Committee has adopted for its report. This title expresses in clear language the Committee's primary recommendation. The Government of Canada, in full partnership with the provinces and territories, should commit itself to the goal of a fully literate country by adopting, implementing and promoting a comprehensive Pan-Canadian Literacy Strategy. This paper makes the case that strong and focussed leadership is required to meet Canada's literacy challenges. Only bold action will serve the social, economic, cultural and political interests of every person who lives in our country, regardless of their circumstances. Canadian governments know that a society that is literate and engaged reaps social and economic benefits that enrich individuals, families and communities as well as the economy upon which their prosperity depends. Literacy opens the door to increased productivity. But ours is not a fully literate country. While we presently enjoy the rewards of an advanced knowledge-based society and economy, both of these pillars rest on a weak foundation. On November 9th 2005, Statistics Canada reported the initial results of the International Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (IALLS), the Canadian results from the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALLS) released by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in May 2005 [see report at TD/TNC 84.222]. Statistics Canada reported that almost 9 million Canadian adults aged 16 to 65, or 42% of the working age population, have literacy skills that are below the level required to function effectively in a knowledge-based economy and society. The proportion of the working aged adult population with low literacy skills remains exactly as it was in 1994.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".