MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016555591 · doi:10.3390/app10072613

Modeling the Measurements of the Determinants of ICT Fluency and Evolution of Digital Divide Among Students in Developing Countries—East Africa Case Study

2020· article· en· W3016555591 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Pierre Niyigena, Qingshan Jiang, Djemel Ziou, Ruey-Shiang Shaw, A S M Touhidul Hasan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersShenzhen Research Foundation
KeywordsDigital divideInformation and Communications TechnologyFluencyDeveloping countryContext (archaeology)Index (typography)ComprehensionEconomic growthPolitical scienceMathematics educationComputer scienceGeographyPsychologyEconomicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last decade, information and communication technology has brought remarkable changes to the education style of developed countries, especially in the context of online learning materials accessibility. However, in developing nations such as the East African (EA) countries, university students may lack the necessary ICT training to take advantage of e-learning resources productively. Therefore, the comprehension of the key factors behind ICT fluency is a significant concern for this region and all the developing countries in general. This paper applies the Concentration Index and proposes a Logistic Regression based model to discover the key determinants of ICT fluency and to explore the evolution of the digital divide among EA students within the four years of undergraduate studies. To identify the principal determinants, data composing of 1237 participants is collected from three different universities in EA within a one year period. The experimental results indicate that the digital divide among students decreases quite fast from the first year to the fourth year. Regression computational findings show that the key determinants of ICT fluency are the student urban/rural origin, computer ownership, computer experience, class year, and major. The findings provide heuristic implications for developers, practitioners, and policy makers for an improved ICT environment implementation in EA and the developing nations in general.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207