MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210328078 · doi:10.20360/langandlit29546

Access and Use of Digital Technologies in Early Childhood: A Review of Mixed Messages in Popular Media

2021· review· en· W3210328078 on OpenAlex
Laura Teichert, Jim Anderson, Ann Anderson, J. Laurence Hare, Marianne McTavish

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracyDigital mediaMedia literacyPromotion (chess)Digital literacyMetropolitan areaEmergent literacySociologyMultimediaPedagogyPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on an analysis of 60 print and online articles collected in a metropolitan area in Canada that describe children’s digital engagement through a focus on ‘early literacy’ or ‘digital literacy’. Findings reveal mixed messages about children’s use of digital technology that create competing frames for adults supporting (or not) young children’s digital literacy practices. Digital technology was often characterized as something to limit/control, except in school, where digital literacy was characterized as holding a proper place when controlled by educators. Consistent across media messaging was the promotion of traditional, print-based texts as an essential early literacy practice.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.318 · 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