Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to emphasize the need to develop a national-level curriculum for adult literacy programs, especially focusing on writing area. Considering the need for adult writing programs increases rapidly while the response to the need is insufficient in various respects, it seems a well-organized national-level curriculum will be helpful in guiding adult writing programs to an appropriate direction and in providing educational and financial resources for the programs. As a part of the foundation of the curriculum development, this study explored current status of adult literacy programs in Korea, which showed the lack of the programs focusing on job literacy and advanced literacy. Also, adult literacy curriculums of the Province of Ontario and the UK were reviewed at the point that the two countries are running a relatively well-organized adult literacy programs. Several suggestions have been made for the next steps. First, discussions need to be made about the direction and the role of the curriculum, how to link the adult writing curriculum with elementary, secondary, or first-year writing curriculum. and how to link it with other literacy areas such as reading, listening and speaking. It is also recommended that the writing curriculum needs to consider the role of digital media.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.004 |
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 it