MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196967357 · doi:10.29173/irie406

Go, girls! longitudinal data on gender differences in Internet use in Brazil

2021· article· en· W3196967357 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gilda Olinto, Sonoê Sugahara Pinheiro, Nadia Bernuci dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsThe InternetCensusLongitudinal dataPosition (finance)Gender gapDemographic economicsDemographyPopulationGeographyPsychologySociologyBusinessEconomicsComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on gender differences in Internet use in Brazil and how it is changing over time, considering its interplay with other environmental and social conditions. Initially, we consider evidence and theoretical approaches of women’s detachment from technology. We then look at data obtained from the 2005 and 2015 Brazilian Bureau of Census Annual Surveys. The results indicate that Internet use grew substantially in the country, but a large portion of the population is still segregated from it. The results also show that some social conditions for Internet use seem to have decreased their impact; however, in 2015 these factors still show a strong effect on the use of this technology. Insofar as gender is concerned, the analyses of its interplay with environmental and social conditions, and its change over time, bring about intriguing, albeit positive results: Women seemed to have transitioned from a slightly inferior to a somewhat better position relative to men.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Information EthicsSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207