MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277962560 · doi:10.82308/10806

One laptop per child: technology, education and development in Rwanda

2011· article· en· W2277962560 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessika Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMinisterio de Educación, Gobierno de ChileSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsLaptopEconomic growthComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis critically examines the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) organization in the context of Rwanda‘s socioeconomic development plans for the year 2020. OLPC is a relatively new, large-scale development organization dedicated to the improvement of education in the world‘s poorest countries through the distribution of laptops specially designed for children. Rwanda is one of the poorest countries to have signed on the program since its founding in 2005, and ranks in the top five subscribers, having purchased 110,000 laptops for distribution among primary school students. The Government of Rwanda is committed to establishing a middle-income economy on the basis of an information economy, and has adopted OLPC to suit this agenda, while OLPC seeks to focus on the educational aspects of the program. This thesis, in the tradition of the anthropology of development, analyzes the motivations and ideals that guide both OLPC and the Government of Rwanda, and proposes that evaluating the program is better done by understanding it in its local context. This research is based on three months of ethnographic fieldwork in four grade five classrooms in urban Rwanda, along with interviews with key members of OLPC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207