The eLiterate Revolution: \nFrom Orality to New Media – Literacy as Communication Technology
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the potential theoretical contribution from the history of communications to literacy research in the field of educational studies. The relation between literacy and new media is examined from a history of communications perspective that treats literacy as communication technology. This thesis shows that current debates about literacy practices in the context of new media (eLiteracies) are grounded in, and continue to reflect, older debates concerning technology, literacy, culture, and society. Current research focuses predominately on the cultural, social, and ideological aspects of literacy (print or digital). This thesis asserts that prevailing theoretical models of literacy, notably the ideological model – one of the most influential theoretical frameworks in contemporary literacy research – are insufficient to effectively investigate relationships between literacy and new media technologies because they neglect technological dimensions that shape communication and literacy practices. The guiding research question this thesis addresses is: In what ways might the understanding of earlier shifts in communication technologies inform that of the transition from print literacy to eLiteracies?
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it