MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378808142 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.180520

Developing Digital Citizenship in Municipality: Factors and Barriers

2023· article· en· W4378808142 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Onuma Suphattanakul, Ekarach Maliwan, Nattawut Eiamnate, Weerachai Thadee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipBusinessEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceEnvironmental sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital citizenship refers to people who can use technology appropriately.The purposes of this research are: (1) to examine personal factors influencing the digital citizenship of people, (2) to investigate the differences in digital citizenship of people between two municipalities, and (3) to examine the barriers to digital citizenship of people.This study employs a quantitative method using an online questionnaire.The sample size was 438 people in Hat Yai Municipality and Songkhla Municipality, Thailand.The results revealed that people with different personal factors, namely gender, age, occupation, income, and level of education, had different levels of digital citizenship.This study also found that people living in different municipal locations had different digital citizenship.Moreover, the most important issue of ethics in using digital media and social networks was emphasized, followed by adaptation/changing behavior towards technology, and knowledge and understanding of using digital media and social networks.The results led to the development of communication channels to educate the public on proper digital citizenship, and the development of the internet network system to fully support digital citizenship in the future.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207