Technoethical Study of Electronic Technology Ab/Use at University
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 case explores how university students view non-work related use of electronic technology within universities (I.e., electronic monitoring technology and personal use of electronic technologies). Of particular interest are student experiences and ethical stances concerning non-work related use of electronic technologies within universities as well as the variables that affect their decision to engage in or not engage in personal electronic technology use during class. To this end, a technoethical case study utilizes research literature and conversational data derived from online group work taken from a research course offered by the communication department of a large urban university. Findings indicate the presence of ethical tensions and contradictions in how students rationalize non-work related use of electronic technology within universities. This case study sheds light on student’s attitudes, subjective norms, attributions of responsibility, and factors affecting students’ ethical stances towards non-work related technology use at university. It also offers recommendations on how to leverage mutual understanding and consensual decision-making in similar contexts where ethical and social controversies arise, surrounding technology and its use in society.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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