MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920870772 · doi:10.1108/ijilt-05-2018-0059

Capturing digital (in)equity in teaching and learning: a sociocritical approach

2019· article· en· W2920870772 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information and Learning Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityEquity (law)Value (mathematics)Dimension (graph theory)Computer sciencePerspective (graphical)SociologyCritical theoryEngineering ethicsMathematics educationEpistemologyManagement scienceSocial sciencePsychologyEngineeringMathematicsPolitical scienceQualitative researchArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a sociocritical approach and describe how it is relevant to the study of digital equity in education. Design/methodology/approach The method is based on a synthesis of the literature regarding critical approaches to digital technology in education. Findings A sociocritical approach is an attempt to formulate a sociological perspective combined with a critical dimension. It provides a relevant theoretical basis for addressing digital (in)equity issues. Originality/value Little use has been made of critical theories in the study of digital technology in education. That may seem surprising insofar as the study of digital technology in education is related to other fields having a well-established critical tradition. The authors build on their work and tailor it to the case of digital technology in education.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.318 · 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