MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161818424 · doi:10.82308/41788

Evolving notions of literacy and the teaching of English : a document analysis of the Secondary English Language Arts Program for Secondary Cycle Two in Quebec

2007· dissertation· en· W7161818424 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul. Kettner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyCurriculumThe artsLanguage artsInformation literacyCritical literacyWritten language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines how changing notions of literacy are translating to curricula in the teaching of English. Two tasks are undertaken: the first is to survey the literature that has informed the ongoing evolution of the concept literacy with the specific goal of highlighting recurring themes in an effort to determine what a New Literacy curriculum would look like in practice. The second part of this study is a document analysis of the Secondary English Language Arts (SELA2) Program for Cycle Two students. The analysis attempts to determine the degree to which the SELA2 document has been informed by new theories of literacy stemming from social theory, critical theory, and New Literacy Theory. Special attention is given to the ways in which the document politicizes the teaching of English, shifting the learning of literacy from an individual skill to a social endeavor that has as one of its tenets a societal move toward greater democracy.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207