MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034361104 · doi:10.36510/learnland.v13i1.1017

Writing the Wrong in the ELA Classroom: The Role of Performance Through Creative Writing

2020· article· en· W3034361104 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Petryna Venuta

Bibliographic record

VenueLEARNing Landscapes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreative writingVariety (cybernetics)Emphasis (telecommunications)PerceptionProfessional writingAcademic writingPsychologyMathematics educationLiteratureArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why aren’t English teachers creative writers? Why is there little to no emphasis on creative writing in ELA classes? What are the implications of popular media portrayals of the writer on students’ perception of writing? In my classroom practice, I encouraged a variety of writing styles that allowed students to grow as readers, but, more importantly, as writers. This paper attempts to understand how we can integrate creative writing with traditional academic writing, to imagine its possibilities, and to examine how we can do more of it.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLEARNing LandscapesSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207