MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240533976 · doi:10.1787/9789264311800-9-en

How's life in the digital age in Canada?

2019· book-chapter· en· W4240533976 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital transformationThe InternetUnavailabilityDigital divideBusinessDisinformationDemographic economicsInternet privacyPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceSocial mediaEconomicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared to other OECD countries, Canada benefits to a large degree from the opportunities offered by the digital transformation while being exposed to relatively low risks. People in Canada make high use of a variety of Internet activities. More people in Canada make use of the Internet for online education and finding and applying for jobs than in any other OECD country. In addition, Canada’s level of digital skills is well above the OECD average, with a relatively low accompanying digital skills gap, and few teachers reporting to lack ICT skills to perform their job (9%). Some other key risks of the digital transformation are relatively contained in Canada. Self-reported exposure to disinformation, at 19% is almost half that of its larger southern neighbour. In addition, the share of children reporting to be exposed to cyberbullying is lower than the OECD average. The assessment of benefits from the digital transformation in Canada should be interpreted with caution due to the unavailability of information on the Canada’s performance in several domains such as work-life balance, digital security and subjective well-being.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOECD eBooksSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207