Student perspectives towards school responses to cyber-risk and safety: the presumption of the prudent digital citizen
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
While previous research identifies skepticism and some animosity among students towards school-based cyber-safety programs, drawing from focus group discussions with Canadian teens, this paper contributes to unpacking reasons for both support for ‘what works’ and antagonism for what is perceived to be lacking. Our findings reveal support for repeated messages, including those eliciting fear, especially for younger students. Criticisms most often centered on the questionable relatability of the messages, and the need for more practical information (e.g., privacy management). Criticisms are largely concentrated among female teens. Among our participants, the concentration of cyber-safety messages is being received in junior high school, with less emphasis by the time students reach high school. We argue that by high school students are expected to have successfully internalized the directives for online safety received in earlier grades, and have acquired, to a greater or lesser extent, a sense of prudentialism and self-control.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it