MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021026221 · doi:10.4236/ce.2020.115050

Digital Literacy for Secondary School Students: Using Computer Technology to Educate about Credibility of Content Online

2020· article· en· W3021026221 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robin Cohen, Alexandre Parmentier, Glaucia Melo, Gaurav Sahu, A. Nagaletchimee Annamalai, Sheldon Chi, Trevor Clokie, Amir Farrag, Abdul Naik, Syed Naseem, Shikhar Sakhuja, Jean Wang, Rich Clausi, Anita Santin

Bibliographic record

VenueCreative Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityMisinformationDigital literacyCurriculumMedia literacySocial mediaDigital contentComputer scienceInformation literacyDigital mediaMultimediaPedagogyMathematics educationLiteracyPsychologyWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an approach to educate secondary school students in the province of Ontario about the credibility of online content. The critical focus here is on integrating computer technology into the teaching of the topic; how to introduce the material in classroom settings with respect to the current curriculum is also outlined. Contrast with an existing proposal for digital literacy developed by historians at Stanford University is provided at the outset. In all, the value of appealing to the current digital experiences of students, when revealing the potential for misinformation, is the critical message. Exploration of social media environments popular with youth and opportunities for game-based quizzes for interactive engagement are both advocated.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCreative EducationSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207