MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285137451 · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102014

The power behind the screen: Educating competent technology users in the age of digitized inequality

2022· article· en· W4285137451 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Educational Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedCompetence (human resources)InequalityDigital literacyPower (physics)SociologyDigital divideLiteracyWork (physics)PoliticsPedagogyPreconditionPolitical sciencePsychologyComputer scienceInformation and Communications TechnologyEngineeringSocial psychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital technologies are deeply embedded in social, economic, and political hegemonies both past and present. Understanding the power dynamics, inequalities, and oppressions at work in and through digital technologies stands as a precondition to educating fully literate, fully competent digital citizens and technology users. This article is situated within an area of overlap between digital literacy and digital competence; that is, it is situated at the overlap of functional and cognitive skills, pedagogy and policymaking. We argue that it is crucial to introduce students to the language and theoretical frameworks examining what power is and how it functions in order to empower students to critically engage with the tangled ethics and power structures attendant with digital technologies and their data.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0060.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.357 · 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