MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165878004 · doi:10.33137/ijournal.v6i2.36458

Personal Information Protection and Digital Technologies in Ontario Schools

2021· article· en· W3165878004 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
A Farrow

Bibliographic record

VenueThe iJournal Student Journal of the Faculty of Information · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Justice Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPledgeLegislationCommissionLegislatureChristian ministryPublic relationsFlexibility (engineering)BusinessInformation privacyInformation technologyPolitical scienceInternet privacyComputer scienceManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario K-12 classrooms increasingly use digital applications and platforms. Consequently, private companies collect more personal information, posing a potential threat to student privacy. Current privacy legislation does not specifically address education technology or its use by children, and current policies and practices do not sufficiently support schools and teachers. Because educational practices and legislative compliance are variable, Ontario schools cannot provide students with consistent personal information protection. This brief considers a privacy pledge, provincial legislation, and a Ministry of Education commission as policy alternatives. In the interest of supporting student privacy, adapting to changing conditions, and providing both clear standards and flexibility to stakeholders, this brief recommends that a Ministry of Education commission be created to review and approve digital applications and platforms for classroom use.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0220.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe iJournal Student Journal of the Faculty of InformationSame topicLegal and Social Justice StudiesFrench-language works237,207