Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter a ‘telling case’ is used to examine connections between health, HIV/AIDS, development, and literacy-related issues within the Canadian context. A ‘telling case’ refers to ‘a situation in which circumstances surrounding a case serve to make previously obscure theoretical relationships suddenly apparent’ (Mitchell 1984: 239). The ‘telling case’ used in this chapter is taken from research carried out as part of a study on how women in the Maritime Provinces of Canada learn about HIV/AIDS. This study was done in the context of a doctoral research degree programme. Prior to describing the case, a brief overview of Canadian literacy-related policy initiatives within adult education is provided. Following this, gender-related issues are briefly described. Next, the case utilised throughout this chapter is detailed and examined through a gender-sensitive lens in order to expose gender-related issues as they relate to health, development, or literacy education. This section concludes with the presentation of some options Sarah might consider if she chose to go forward with further developing her literacy skills. This includes a brief discussion on how a rights-based approach to literacy education or a programme based on a social model of disability might be helpful to the individual situation described within this chapter.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".