Bibliographic record
Abstract
For decades, language and literacy scholars working within a sociocultural framework have laboured to bring attention to the strengths of marginalized students in an effort to create more inclusive and equitable learning environments (e.g., Cummins, 2000; Dyson, 1997; González et al., 2005; Heath, 1983). While this work has moved the field forward in invaluable ways, it has not consistently engaged with processes of marginalization as a complex practice, which has produced gaps in our understanding of how we can best address it in research and practice to the benefit of all learners. Drawing on the notions of literacy socialization (Sterponi, 2012) and syncretic literacy (Duranti and Ochs, 1996; Gregory et al., 2013a), in this paper I conduct a close examination of the in- and out-of-school literacy socialization practices of Max Calfu, a seven-year-old Chilean-Canadian boy, over the course of a year-long ethnography that I conducted with his family at their home, at his Spanish-English bilingual public school, and in transit between home and school in a large Western Canadian city. At school, Max's Indigenous identity was regularly rendered invisible by the cultural capital his Chilean-national heritage held within the Spanish bilingual program (Calderón and Urrieta, 2019). Using thematic analysis (Saldaña, 2013), I demonstrate how Max incorporated the wolf figure into his literacy practices over the course of the research year, considering multiple scales of space and time, and in relation to key mediators. My analysis calls attention to the ways in which he drew on his syncretic literacy experiences to author his Indigenous identity in official and unofficial learning spaces. I conclude the paper by arguing that examining syncretism in children's literacy practices can lay the foundation for a more ethically, emotionally, and culturally engaged language education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".