MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1492279633 · doi:10.21432/t25k59

Cognitive and Social Factors Affecting the Use of Wikipedia and Information Seeking / Les facteurs cognitifs et sociaux déterminant l'utilisation de Wikipedia et la recherche d'information

2012· article· en· W1492279633 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siyoung Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEncyclopediaHumanitiesSocial psychologySociologyLibrary scienceComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, is the preferred choice among resources used by college students to meet their research needs. However, Wikipedia has been criticized for its low information quality, lack of accountability, inconsistency, and vulnerability to vandalism. Despite the warnings and concerns voiced by academia, online learning tools such as Wikipedia will continue their rise as major learning resource in today's classroom. Using a sample of 184 college students, the study proposed theoretical models to test the effects of internal beliefs, motivations, and social influences on Wikipedia use and information-seeking, and further empirically tested those models. The findings of this study suggested that Wikipedia use is driven by internal belief and peer pressure, whereas information-seeking is influenced by belief, motivation, and subjective norms. The implications of the findings for the research and practice are discussed. Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie gratuite en ligne, est le choix préféré des étudiants ayant besoin de faire une recherche. Cependant, Wikipédia a été critiqué pour la faible qualité de ses informations, son manque d’imputabilité, son incohérence et sa vulnérabilité au vandalisme. En dépit des mises en garde et des inquiétudes exprimées par le milieu universitaire, l’importance en salle de classe des outils d'apprentissage en ligne tels que Wikipédia continuera de croître. Sur la base d’un échantillon de 184 étudiants de niveau collégial, l'étude a proposé des modèles théoriques pour tester les effets des croyances personnelles, des motivations et des influences sociales sur l'utilisation de Wikipédia et sur la recherche d'information. Ces modèles ont ensuite été testés empiriquement. Les résultats de cette étude suggèrent que l'utilisation de Wikipédia est motivée par les croyances personnelles et la pression exercée par les camarades, alors que la recherche d'information est influencée par les croyances, la motivation et des normes subjectives. L’article se termine par une discussion des implications de ces résultats pour la recherche et la pratique.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207