MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019107716 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v9n3p300

Determination of Digital Citizenship Levels of University Students at Sakarya University Turkey

2020· article· en· W3019107716 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ezgi Pelin Yıldız, Ayşe Alkan, Metin Çengel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipScale (ratio)Vocational educationDimension (graph theory)Mathematics educationCritical thinkingSociologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePedagogyMathematicsLawPoliticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When digital transactions such as official transactions, banking transactions, communication, education, production, shopping are carried out in digital environment, the concept of digital citizenship has emerged. Digital citizenship; it is the person who has the ability to use information technologies appropriately and correctly in areas such as official transactions, social communication, education, and production. As technology improves, problems with its use increases exponentially. So technological behavior or technological citizenship it is clear that the behavior, values, ethical rules and awareness should be created. In this study in order to detection this awareness; it is aimed to determine the digital citizenship levels of university students. For this purpose, 253 students studied in various departments of the Hendek Vocational High School of Technical Sciences in Sakarya university. The research was carried out with the relational scanning model from the quantitative research method. “Digital Citizenship Scale for Youth” was developed by Kus, Gunes, Basarmak and Yakar (2017) the researcher as a data collection tool with permission. The scale has 49 items, the total variance of the scale was determined that the scale had 8-factor structure and was found to be 49,70%. Related dimensions are communication, jus and responsibility, critical thinking, participation, security, digital skills, ethics and commerce. In the analysis of the data, non-parametric tests were used in addition to the percentage, frequency and standard deviation values. As a result; students were revealed to be aware of digital citizenship’s sub-dimension.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207