Digital Divide: Evidence from the 2020 Canadian Internet Use Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies inequality in digital participation across socioeconomic and demographic groups using the 2020 Canadian Internet Use Survey (CIUS). We combine survey-weighted logistic Lasso, an exact Shapley decomposition of age--education gaps, a sequential logit, and a bifactor item response theory (IRT) measure of digital literacy to identify who is excluded, why gaps persist, and where along the adoption path they arise. Education is the only determinant that remains significant at every rung of the digital ladder. Income inequality is most pronounced for virtual-wallet adoption; for online banking, employment and education together account for nearly half of the pro-rich concentration, indicating a broad socioeconomic gradient rather than a purely income-based divide. Persons with disabilities face the largest penalty at the digital-payments stage rather than at online banking, pointing to accessibility gaps in retail payment interfaces. Conditioning on digital literacy eliminates the education gradient at internet entry and reduces it by 61\% at the online banking rung, but a substantial residual persists, pointing to behavioral and institutional frictions beyond measurable competence. The youngest cohort records the lowest information-seeking score despite high digital engagement, and security deficits are concentrated among landed immigrants and visible minorities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".