Bibliographic record
Abstract
EARLIER THIS year, phones at Health Canada were jammed by anxious callers wanting official word on whether bananas carried virus that causes flesh-eating disease. Panicking parents, day-care providers, and even hospital staff members had been exposed to a modern variant of contaminated information - virtual urban legend. Like many other unlikely tales, this banana slander was spread by highest priority e-mails sent from one gullible user to next. Tired of repeating same assurances, Health Canada finally issued an official statement declaring bananas to be innocent victims of a smear campaign. There is little doubt that we seem to park our skepticism at door when dealing with computer-mediated information. If it can be downloaded, it must be true. And if we're vulnerable to technologically distributed myths, what about our susceptibility to myths about technology itself? According to a pair of recent national studies called Young Canadians in a Wired World, Canadian adults are woefully mistaken about what their children are doing online.1 It seems that everyone has bought new urban (and suburban) legend that when students are asked, Where do you want to go today? they actually opt for MIT rather than NBA. The research was conducted in 2000 and 2001 by Environics Research for Media Awareness Network. The Media Awareness Network was founded in 1993 as an information clearinghouse on media violence. Originally a modest spinoff of National Film Board, like many other noncommercial (or even anticommercial) organizations, network soon found its core government funding yanked as budgets were cut. As a result, network has become increasingly dependent on corporate funding provided by cable companies, Internet providers, broadcasting corporations, and disinterested parties like AOL Canada. Predictably, it has shifted away from confronting media violence to pursuing technological preoccupations of its sponsors, which include four departments of federal government. Although it continues to produce high-quality resources for parents and teachers on issues such as protecting youngsters' privacy online, network has steered clear of anything that could be construed as critical of government or corporate behavior - or, for that matter, of anything that could undermine our boundless faith in the promises of technology. The two surveys that make up Young Canadians in a Wired World suggest that youths and their parents have very different ideas about life online. In first study, 1,000 parents were asked about their children's Internet experiences and habits. Eighty-eight percent reported that they were somewhat or very familiar with their child's use of Internet - a figure that might match percentage of parents who think that they know all about their children's experimentation with alcohol, drugs, and sex. The second study asked 6,000 youths between ages of 12 and 17 what they really do online, and how closely their parents are watching. As readers might suspect, parental hubris is alive and well in cyberspace. Ninety-nine percent of youths report that they use Internet, which 79% can access from home. Forty-eight percent of 12- to 17-year-olds go online every day, and 12% stay there more than three hours. Although 65% of parents think that homework dominates their children's Internet use, youths report that they like to use Internet for, in order of preference, playing or downloading music (57%), sending e-mail (56%), and surfing for fun (50%). Forty-eight percent play games online, while only 38% turn to Internet for help with homework. Although 41% of youths use instant messaging, fewer than 4% of their parents are aware of it. High school students are likely to have 30 people on their instant messaging list, 10 of whom they have never met. Kids are cyber-shoppers too, with 21% of high school boys claiming to have made online purchases. …
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".