Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tensions between empowerment and exploitation are especially heightened when\ndiscussing the activities of children and youth online. Discourse in the mainstream\npress around youth participation in online spaces wavers between anxiety and hope,\nand corporate frameworks and dataveillance practices structure many of these sites.\nYet little attention has been paid to the underlying architecture of social norms that\nwork with stereotyped visions of gendered play to provide the foundation for the\ninteractions of young technology users. This paper investigates how domestic practices\nconstrain and enable particular forms of user participation, focusing in particular\non gendered access to digital play and notions of technology use. Using\ndata from interviews with 25 young people aged 8–15 and their parents, this\npaper examines how social norms work in tandem with essentializing design to\nmutually constitute gendered expectations around technology use. It then considers\nhow these young users and their parents in turn challenge and reaffirm these constraining\nand enabling norms through their practices.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".