Practitioner identity and practitioner networks in the field of adult literacy in Canada: a dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, the authors explore how their own practice and identity as adult literacy educators has been shaped by the disappearance of national and regional networks, linking the local realities of their literacy work to the broader context of federal defunding and the shifting national policy discourse. Each of the authors has experience as adult literacy educators formed in different social and geographic locations in Canada and spanning different time periods from the late 1990s to now. Through a collective autoethnographic approach to policy studies, they reflect on how they have felt supported or not supported in their work before, during and after the defunding. Grounding the dialogue in their experience in the field and their current roles as researchers, they discuss how increasing fragmentation in adult literacy has impacted their sense of identity as literacy workers and the possibilities for connection/collaboration and social action in the field. Through this conversation, they hope to make sense of and shed light on possibilities for rebuilding and regenerating practitioner networks that can support a collaborative and activist stance in the field in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".