Island culture and the value of literacy on Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literacy, like formal education in general, is a product of cultural values. Recognition and awareness of cultural values and practices is integral to understanding the varied meaning(s), use(s), and impact(s) of literacy specific to a given community or location because literacy cannot be studied in isolation; indeed, literacy must be studied in relation to a particular sociocultural context because the meanings and uses vary across cultural boundaries. Furthermore, cultural analysis can be challenging under the best of conditions, but it is especially challenging in the context of small island societies. In the latter, intellectual values and a commitment to formal education tends to be marginalised by the preservation and emphasis on values and traditions historically springing from economic survival—fishing and farming, for example. Through the lens of Island Studies (Nissology), I have examined the relationship between literacies and cultural practices in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. More specifically, by way of a comparative case study between one Newfoundland and one Prince Edward Island community, I have demonstrated that although literacy and education are valued and deemed important by islanders, other activities and values, such as employment, may (and often do) take greater priority.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".