MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7048462613

Literary theory: historical origins, current constructs, derivative approaches and Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation document applications

2002· dissertation· en· W7048462613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2002
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumRealmThe artsCurriculum developmentFoundation (evidence)Curriculum theoryField (mathematics)Curriculum framework
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The herald and harbinger of the new millennium has, most decidedly, been change. Its hand has touched almost all facets of human existence, it being slow, slight and singular in some cases yet rapid, multiple and irrevocable in others. High school curriculum development has also felt its impress as well. The western provinces have recognized and responded to the call for change with the Western Canadian Protocol - Common Curriculum Framework; closer to home the impetus for change in curriculum direction, development, and documents has been answered through the formulation and gradual implementation of the Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation document. It is within the pages of this document that new directions and reconceptualizations take shape that will serve to inform the teaching of English language arts for the new millennium. -- For the most part, this shape and direction has been a theoretical one, specifically that of literary theory. With the explosion of the new continental literary theories and their subsequent graft and maturation, this field has been a decided mover and shaker in not only the realm of the academy but, particularly of late, in the world of high school curriculum development. The philosophies and methodologies of movements and schools such as critical literacy, semiotics, deconstruction, cultural studies, etc. are those that now serve to form some of the key conceptual and structural pillars of the English language arts classroom. The presence, role, and practical application of such theories in current curriculum frameworks, particularly the APEF, necessitate an examination of this theoretical territory and its inherent consciousness in the APEF. It also necessitates a proposal utilizing the integration and synthesis of said theories, resulting ultimately in workable practices for the English language arts classroom; applications borne of, circumscribed by, and adherent to critical literacy and multiple sign systems. -- Critical literacy, itself, is an approach to teaching English language arts that is characterized by eclecticism and dichotomy, and draws its fuel and fire from postmodern theoretical stances. Transactions through multiple sign systems utilizes an application of Gardiner's Multiple Intelligences through Reader-Response Theory, specifically the American development of Rosenblatt termed aesthetic transactive theory. Such reshaping, refashioning, and reconceptualizing, evident in curriculum development, is no less evident within the APEF where its designers have sought and wrought new directions and innovations for the 21st century, theoretically grounded in literary theory. It is also clearly evident that these new directions and shifts embrace the philosophy behind critical literacy and transactions through multiple sign systems. -- It is to such perceived shifts in the accepted order that Thomas Kuhn coined the term paradigm; it is to such shifts that the students of Newfoundland and Labrador will be introduced to a new paradigm under the aegis of the APEF and its inherent literary theories.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0110.021
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→