Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we explore the concept of heritage literacy as it emerged within a study of Hong Kong's Muslim communities. The research draws from the fields of literacy studies and linguistic anthropology, and utilises data from three respondents gathered using qualitative procedures, including repeat interviews, observations of heritage-related activities, and the collection of heritage artefacts. Our study finds that a range of heritage literacy practices occur in various community spaces and homes, are characteristically translingual and transmodal, and interconnect with everyday heritage practices in ways that may diverge from classical forms. Further, the ways that people adopt or adapt religious heritage marks this out as something that evolves over time and a way to resource heritage futures. We thus argue that the construct of heritage in our work is not a generic outcome of heritage language or heritage education, but stems from the specific literacy practices embedded within particular material and multi-voiced discursive arrangements. Building on these key dimensions, this paper presents a typology for heritage literacy inquiry, distinguishing it markedly from heritage language studies. It further advocates for the value of heritage literacy as a heuristic tool within multilingual and multicultural contexts, grounded in seven key principles.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".