The web as a classroom resource: Reactions from the users
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents and discusses interviews with 50 grade-6 primary school students about their experience of using the Web to find information for a class project. The children discuss the quantity and quality of textual and image information on the Web versus traditional print sources, and the reasons why they made very little use of any moving images and sound clips on the Web. They also discuss how they searched for information on the Web and the ways in which this differs from looking for information in printed sources. The children overall demonstrate a sophistication both in their appreciation of the Web's strengths and weaknesses as an information source, and in their information retrieval strategies. In their reaction to the Web compared with traditional print sources, they can be categorized as technophiles, traditionalists, or pragmatists. The results from this research study suggest that although the Web can make an important contribution to information retrieval by school students, for the time being, at any rate, a role also remains both for other electronic sources such as CD-ROMs and print materials that are targeted specifically at young users. The Web needs both a more straightforward interface and more information specifically aimed at the young before it can seriously threaten its rivals.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it