MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980377078 · doi:10.1002/pra2.121

The false trade‐off of relevance for safety in children's search systems

2019· article· en· W2980377078 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Figueiredo, Eric M. Meyers

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)The InternetQuality (philosophy)Child safetyPsychologyInternet privacyPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Since the wide adoption of the Internet in public schools and libraries, parents, educators and caregivers have been concerned about the safety and efficacy of children's search practice, often willing to accept diminished information quality to ensure that young searchers do not encounter illicit materials. In this study, part of a broader examination of youth search practices in the early years, we demonstrate that “safe”, child‐oriented search engines provide less relevant results, while failing to keep children from the unfiltered Web, the narrow definition of safety proffered by the sites themselves. Based on our findings, we suggest that the rhetorics of these search tools present a false trade‐off and may actually hinder inquiry practice, as opposed to supporting safe and developmentally appropriate access to online materials.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.015
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207