MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593370171 · doi:10.22230/ijepl.2011v6n4a215

Information and Communication Technologies in International Education: A Canadian Policy Analysis

2011· article· en· W1593370171 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Robert Aucoin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education Policy and Leadership · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricAgency (philosophy)Information and Communications TechnologyGlobalizationICTSPolitical sciencePublic relationsKnowledge economyPopulationSociologyEconomic growthSocial scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rhetoric surrounding the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in international education speaks of providing education access for all. However, an examination of actual policies reveals an emphasis not on creating an educated population, but on improving economic opportunities using discourses such as globalization, knowledge economy, and knowledge society. This emphasis creates an imbalance in opportunities for using ICTs in education and presents challenges for international educators. This paper discusses the Canadian International Development Agency’s report, CIDA’s Strategy on Knowledge for Development through Information and Communication Technologies, as an example of how rhetoric does not always meet reality. The paper concludes with four simple recommendations for good ICT practice in developing contexts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.016
Science and technology studies0.0150.005
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Education Policy and LeadershipSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207