Digital Literacy Training in Canada, Part 2: Defining and Measuring Success
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores how public libraries and other local community organizations can best deliver and evaluate the digital literacy initiatives they provide to the communities they serve; this article focuses on program evaluation. Interviews with 14 administrators of digital literacy programs revealed that administrators espouse idealistic intentions for digital literacy programs, particularly to give marginalized people increased educational and vocational opportunities. These administrators are also confident in the success of these programs, despite little formal assessment of outcomes for learners. Success is measured by numbers of program participants and anecdotal evidence of positive outcomes for learners, such as increased confidence or an intention to move forward with career goals. This limited approach to measuring the success of digital literacy programs reveals significant opportunity to more fully and systematically evaluate the outcomes of these programs and to assess whether program goals are being met and ongoing investment of resources is merited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it