MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W164527030 · doi:10.29173/irie36

Using Information Technology to Create Global Classrooms: Benefits and Ethical Dilemmas

2007· article· en· W164527030 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
York W. Bradshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Society and Technology Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital divideThe InternetInequalityVideoconferencingPublic relationsGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsPolitical scienceGlobal educationEconomic growthSociologyMultimediaEconomicsComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global digital divide represents one of the most significant examples of international inequality. In North America and Western Europe, nearly 70% of citizens use the Internet on a regular basis, whereas in Africa less than 4% do so. Such inequality impacts business and trade, online education and libraries, telemedicine and health resources, and political information and e-government. In response, a group of educators and community leaders in South Africa and the United States have used various information technologies to create a ?global classroom? that connects people in the two countries. University students, high school students, and other citizens communicate via Internet exchanges, video conferencing, and digital photo essays. The project has produced a number of tangible benefits and it has developed a model for reducing inequality in global education, at least for those institutions with the technological resources to participate. We also present several recommendations for how to expand the initiative and thereby increase the number of people who can benefit from it.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.030
Scholarly communication0.0190.025
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Information EthicsSame topicInformation Society and Technology TrendsFrench-language works237,207