Evaluation of a virtual 4-week digital literacy program for older adults during COVID-19: a pilot study
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
Older adults have become more dependent on using technologies to connect and communicate with others across the globe. This insight has since become more evident with the COVID-19 pandemic. While many older adults have increased their skills with these technologies, many more lack the necessary knowledge and skillset to effectively benefit from their use. To provide them with an accessible and older adult friendly digital training, in the summer of 2021, we pilot tested a brief 4-week digital literacy program to train older adults on key skills related to navigating their computer such as sending e-mails or traversing the web, etc. A convenience sample of 5 older adults volunteered for this brief intervention study in which they were to participate in a 1.5-hour intervention twice a week, for 4 weeks (8 total sessions). Topics varied from class to class. Results suggest that average computer proficiency scores were higher post intervention compared to pre-intervention. Additionally, post intervention scores were higher on computer basics, communication, and Internet subscales. All sessions were typically completed within the proposed time. The main technical issues identified were related to connecting to the digital sessions as well as navigating application interfaces across devices (i.e., differences in icons or application names between iOS and Android powered devices). Overall, these findings would suggest that older adults may be able to quickly gain digital literacy skills in a short period of time, provided that they are well supported.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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