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 OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Laura Teichert, Jim Anderson, Ann Anderson, J. Laurence Hare, Marianne McTavish

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.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and LiteracySame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207