Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis in part examines the efforts of a teacher to bring critical literacy to life in a classroom and also defines and critiques the use of this pedagogical practice within Québec's Anglophone schools. Critical literacy is often referred to in many government based curriculums across Canada, and especially within Québec's Anglophone document; however whether or not it is enacted in the classroom is challenged. By primary means of reflection on three critical incidents of teaching and examination into professional practices what is revealed is that far too often teachers are convinced they are enacting the emancipatory purpose of critical literacy, but in reality, due to personal and outside (peers, administration, community) censorship the pedagogical act is greatly diluted. Standardized programs developed outside of Canada, like Success for All or the Daily Five, which are used in many Anglophone school boards, are used as examples of how critical literacy is often misunderstood and misappropriated. In brief, by primary means of personal narrative reflection and a review of the literature, the author examines whether or not critical literacy, as defined from a critical pedagogy position, can be found within the Québec's English Schools and what barriers exist to hinder its implementation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".