MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380052925 · doi:10.21428/f1f23564.ded41de0

Digital Literacy as a Theory of Power:Critical Pedagogy in a Library Digital Scholarship Centre

2023· article· en· W4380052925 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIDEAH · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta LibraryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipDigital scholarshipLiteracyInformation literacySociologyPower (physics)Critical literacyDigital libraryCritical theoryPedagogyComputer sciencePolitical scienceLibrary scienceArtPhysicsLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the role of informal learning organizations in fostering digital literacy in Canadian universities?By informal learning environments, we mean spaces like libraries, centres for teaching and learning, academic success centres, makerspaces, and other facilities that make up the function of a contemporary university and which contrast with formal classrooms which have the authority and responsibility to conform to a particular curriculum, assign grades, and confer degrees.In this paper, the authors reflect on several years of operating a non-departmental research and teaching facility by connecting the pedagogical activities undertaken by its academic staff to educational and political theories with a specific focus on technology.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.305
Teacher spread0.284 · 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