MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410705261 · doi:10.29173/cais1898

Reading the province

2025· article· en· W4410705261 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Madelaine Hare, Poppy Riddle, Sandra Toze, Wendy L. Kraglund‐Gauthier, Alison Brown, Lindsay McNiff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsYorkville UniversityDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)LinguisticsGeographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This scoping review uses systematic review methodology to survey literature on established and emerging forms of literacy and their measurement, focusing on scholarly and grey literature published since 2014. Findings emphasize the need for standardized yet context-sensitive evaluation frameworks, acknowledging regional disparities, cultural contexts, and emerging domains like digital literacy. Key challenges include reflecting multifaceted literacy outcomes such as social connection, independence, and confidence. The study was undertaken to provide an evidence base for the non-profit organization Literacy Nova Scotia as they seek to survey the state of literacy in Nova Scotia. The next phase involves a Delphi study to gather insights from Nova Scotian literacy experts, informing robust, inclusive assessment frameworks. Lire la province: construction d'un cadre d'évaluation multilitératie pour la Nouvelle-Écosse RésuméCette revue exploratoire, fondée sur une méthodologie de revue systématique, passe en revue la littérature sur l’établissement et l’émergence des formes de littératie, ainsi que sur leur évaluation, en mettant l’accent sur la littérature savante et la littérature grise publiées depuis 2014. Les résultats soulignent les besoins pour standardiser les cadres d’évaluation contextuelle, la reconnaissance des disparités régionales, les contextes culturels, et l’émergence de domaines comme l’alphabétisation numérique. Les défis majeurs incluent la prise en compte des multiples facettes des résultats de l’alphabétisation comme la connexion sociale, l’indépendance, et la confiance en soi. L’étude a été entrepris pour fournir une indication de base à l’organisme à but non lucratif Literacy Nova Scotia, qui cherche à évaluer le statut de l’alphabétisation en Nouvelle Écosse. La phase suivante implique une étude Delphi rassemblant les perspectives des experts néo-écossais en alphabétisation, qui proposent des cadres d’évaluation solides et inclusifs. Mots-cléslittératie; mesure; Nouvelle-Écosse; revue exploratoire; évaluation

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.014

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 head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSISame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207