MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1927315380 · doi:10.21432/t2kp6f

Exploring the Digital Divide: The Use of Digital Technologies in Ontario Public Schools

2015· article· en· W1927315380 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Bodong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyTechnology integrationEducational technologyDigital dividePrincipal (computer security)DemographicsMathematics educationPublic relationsBusinessPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyPolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combining data from a school principal survey with student demographics and achievement data, the present study aimed to develop a much needed understanding of ICT usage in Ontario’s K-12 public schools. Results indicated equitable first-order access to technology for schools, early integration of ICT from the earliest grades, frequent application of ICT in teaching, and an enabling effect of ICT on additional access to learning resources and distance learning. However, challenges were also uncovered in building technology infrastructure for a small fraction of schools; ensuring home access for schools with lower family incomes, smaller size or from remote regions; and providing teachers with professional development for choosing online materials and adopting emerging ICT-enabled teaching practice. Furthermore, this study highlighted the importance of parent involvement in ICT usage and the potential beneficial linkage between ICT usage and student learning achievement.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.085 · 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207