MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197373915 · doi:10.29173/irie414

Existe diversidade de letramento digital sem reflexão crítica sobre a leitura?

2021· article· en· W3197373915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gustavo Silva Saldanha, Amanda Salomão

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Digital Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PerceptionSociologyEpistemologyPsychologyPedagogyLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper furthers the discussion that intersects the works of Paulo Freire and Nicolas Roubakine, within the sphere of the epistemology of Information Science, on the role of reading as a tool for acquiring knowledge and developing critical awareness. The theoretical concepts employed in this research are founded on Roubakine's approach to reading, who saw it as a means to socialize knowledge among socially oppressed groups, and complemented by the perception that reading involves reading the world itself. Ultimately, the knowledge acquired through these reading experiences could be used to increase readers' awareness of their environments and create opportunities to resist and oppose the inequalities that are perpetuated in current information regimes.

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)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Information EthicsSame topicEducation and Digital TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207