Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of researchers have advocated for service learning projects in post-secondary computing programs. While these projects can achieve important disciplinary outcomes for the students, what has been under examined is the benefit that these projects have for the service recipients and their community. This paper argues that since service learning projects are meant to benefit both student donors and community recipients, we must examine much more carefully how computing service projects interact with all the social actors affected by the projects. Taking such an approach will require recognizing that ICT by itself will not improve or increase democracy, equality, social inclusion, or any other social good. Analogous to the experience of foreign aid recipients in the developing world, some service learning projects may actually do more harm than good. The paper concludes by providing some sample computer learning projects that are oriented more strongly towards achieving true service for the recipients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".