MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083091579 · doi:10.1002/asi.24408

Using information science to enhance educational preventing violent extremism programs

2020· article· en· W3083091579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin Wong, Geoff Walton, Gavin Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHome Office
KeywordsRadicalizationViolent extremismUnderpinningLegitimacyPolitical sciencePublic relationsPoliticsEvidence-based policyThematic analysisSociologySocial scienceTerrorismLawQualitative researchEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Educational preventing violent extremism (EPVE) programs have had (to date) little if any theoretical underpinning. Given their proliferation in jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and other European countries, such an absence is notable but not unexpected given the political sensitivities attached to them. These programs remain an emerging policy area which is still “finding its feet,” around which their legitimacy and efficacy is keenly debated. This paper argues for adopting theoretical principles drawn from information science research based upon information behavior models to provide a framework for the design and development of such programs and against which their efficacy can be tested. We demonstrate how this approach can be applied through thematic analysis of the theory of change models of EPVE programs implemented in England and Wales, designed to increase awareness and understanding of radicalization among young people, their carers, and professionals. This article is ground breaking and of international significance, being the first to apply learning from information science to practice in furthering policy goals around countering radicalization and extremism in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.333 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207