MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009845401 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.11908425

Domains of Digital Literacy

2020· article· en· W3009845401 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erika E. Smith, Terry Judd

Bibliographic record

VenueMount Royal University Institutional Repository (Mount Royal University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLiteracyDiagramEpistemologySociologyPedagogyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This diagram illustrates three interconnected domains of digital literacy (procedural and technical, cognitive, and sociocultural). Please cite this diagram as:Smith, E. E., Kahlke, R. & Judd, T. (2018). Domains of digital literacy. [Diagram]. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11908425 This diagram was created for a paper presentation at ASCILITE 2018. The paper informing the diagram, including the full list of references, is available at: Smith, E. E., Kahlke, R. & Judd, T. (2018). From digital natives to digital literacy: Anchoring digital practices through learning design. In M. Campbell, J. Willems, C. Adachi, D. Blake, I. Doherty, S. Krishnan, S. Macfarlane, L. Ngo, M. O’Donnell, S. Palmer, L. Riddell, I. Story, H. Suri & J. Tai (Eds.), Open Oceans: Learning without borders. Proceedings ASCILITE 2018 Geelong (pp. 510-515). http://2018conference.ascilite.org/conference-proceedings/ This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Corresponding author: Dr. Erika E. Smith, Twitter: @erikasmith

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.013

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMount Royal University Institutional Repository (Mount Royal University)Same topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207