MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134709086 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v4n3p68

What Online Networks Offer: Online Network Compositions and Online Learning Experiences of Three Ethnic Groups

2015· article· en· W2134709086 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suzanne Lecluijze, Mariëtte de Haan, Aslı Ünlüsoy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeTurkishEthnic groupDiversity (politics)Social network (sociolinguistics)Online discussionCultural diversitySociologyPsychologySocial mediaSocial psychologyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exploratory study examines ethno-cultural diversity in youth´s narratives regarding their online learning experiences while also investigating how these narratives can be understood from the analysis of their online network structure and composition. Based on ego-network data of 79 respondents this study compared the characteristics of the online social networks of native Dutch, Moroccan-Dutch, and Turkish-Dutch youth. Subsequently, thirty interviews were analyzed to compare youth’s narratives regarding two aspects typically associated with 21th century online learning: ‘ individual online exploration’ , and ‘ participation, collaboration and exchange of information in online communities’ . The results show that the three ethnic groups significantly differ regarding their online network composition. Youth’s narratives also reveal that their online learning experiences are ethno-specific. Youth differ regarding the nature of online communities in which they search for information, make new contacts and distribute their own media creations. For example, Turkish-Dutch youth primarily engage in their own ethnic transnational networks to find information and to share media content, whereas Moroccan-Dutch youth seem more open to develop new contacts and to search for information outside of their familiar network. It is suggested that these ethno-specific narratives can be understood as resonating specific network configurations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207