Opportunities and Scaffolds for Critical Reflection on Ethical Issues in an Online After School Biowearable Workshop for Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid adoption of biowearables, such as smartwatches, raises ethical issues as youth are increasingly being tracked, monitored and given feedback on a growing number of measures. To address this pressing need, we investigated how to support youth to understand and explore these ethical issues grounded in the processes of prototyping during an afterschool online critical making workshop. The main contribution of this paper is our critical reflection framework, consisting of three interrelated components: ethical issues, technical opportunities, and reflection scaffolds. We focus on ethical issues related to the potential for biowearables to negatively impact six constructs taken from child development. We describe how we created a biowearable-tangible prototyping kit that has under-determined design decision points, creating technologically-mediated opportunities for reflection during the iterative prototyping process. Third, we present a set of critical reflection cards created to support youth to explore the ethical issues related to those decision points. We provide two scenarios from a pilot study that illustrate our framework in action, providing preliminary validation for our approach in an online environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".