Doubtful dialogue: how youth navigate the draw (and drawbacks) of online political dialogue
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
Social media platforms like Twitter are venues for 24/7 political discussion – including deliberation, everyday banter, and bickering. For youth, these platforms offer new opportunities and risks for participation, and suggest corresponding implications for civic education. This qualitative, exploratory study examines how 15 civic youth (ages 15–25) in the United States define and carry out political dialogue on social media platforms. We compare youths’ reported online dialogue strategies with strategies observed in digital artifacts of their posts. Findings suggest that youths’ conceptions of good online dialogue and its key ingredients – knowledge, respect, and diversity – are aligned with their practices in many respects. However, juxtaposing artifacts of youths’ online dialogue threads with reported strategies surfaced disjunctions, related to (1) perceived dialogue style and (2) perceptions of the value of online dialogue. Building on recent studies of novel classroom approaches, this study suggests promising entry points for educators and curricula to support youth to navigate the risks and opportunities of online spaces for civic expression and dialogue.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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