Children, technology and social values: Enabling children's voices in a pluralistic world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The landscape of childhood in the 21st century increasingly involves technology. As information and communication technologies (ICTs) become ubiquitous in homes, schools, libraries, and play spaces, children are plugged‐in and online with greater frequency and at a younger age. Concerns regarding new and emerging technologies like the immersive Internet, mobile phones, and social networking sites often lead to highly charged, emotive responses aimed at reducing the risks associated with such technologies. These reactions focus our attention on children in the role of victimized consumer, and privilege the perspective of a single stakeholder, the parent. This desire to protect young technology consumers runs contrary to the participatory techniques intended to give greater voice to users in the design and development of technology. A broader, more enlightened perspective on the role of technology in the lives of children recognizes the multiple roles, stakeholders, and value propositions which affect these interactions with ICTs. Rather than casting children in the limited role of consumer of technology, participatory and value‐sensitive design techniques afford children the role of tester, evaluator, appropriator, remediator, co‐designer, or co‐investigator. Creating and sustaining a pluralistic society means providing sufficient opportunities for the voices of children in the decisions that affect their lives and their futures. This panel will ground this discussion in current empirical research studies where a child's voice is actively sought as part of the design and evaluation of technologies as an opportunity to speculate about the need to go further in ensuring that children are active participants in the decision making process. The panel will invite discussion about ways that the information science community could be taking a far more active role in terms of awareness raising, advocacy and mediation between all the various stakeholders to enable a stronger voice for children in society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".