MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403674160 · doi:10.20360/langandlit29724

“What’s the Use?”: Undoing, Decolonizing, Liberating, and Righting Literacies Assessment in Turbulent Times

2024· article· en· W4403674160 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michelle A. Honeyford, Jennifer C. Watt

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStudent Assessment and Feedback
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUndoingLiteracySociologyPsychologyPedagogyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this conceptual paper, we draw upon Ahmed (2019) and ask “what’s the use of assessment?” The Reimagining Literacies Assessment knowledge mobilization project contributes examples from research and pedagogy in classrooms with young children, in a Cree language immersion program, in anti-racist creative writing classrooms, and in research in reading instruction and assessment. Undoing, decolonizing, liberating, righting become concepts to think through the use of assessment and to propose critically urgent and emergent questions, practices, and possibilities for students and teachers.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.359
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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and LiteracySame topicStudent Assessment and FeedbackFrench-language works237,207