MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388527532 · doi:10.1080/17439884.2023.2280058

A TechnoEthical Framework for Teachers

2023· article· en· W4388527532 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

VenueLearning Media and Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExistentialismPerspective (graphical)Through-the-lens meteringSociologyPedagogyMathematics educationLens (geology)PsychologyEngineering ethicsEpistemologyComputer scienceEngineeringPhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A TechnoEthical Framework for Teachers (TEFT) is introduced to aid educators in selecting and employing educational technologies in ethically sound and pedagogical sensitive ways in their classrooms. TEFT views technology through three key technoethical lenses or perspectives: instrumental, sociomaterial and existential. The instrumental lens is most familiar to teachers and focuses on the policies and laws governing teachers’ and students’ uses of technology. The sociomaterial perspective attends to technology’s built-in biases and how it translates behaviour in prescribed or circumscribed ways. The existential lens considers how students’ and teachers’ entanglements with technology condition how they experience the world and transform their ways of knowing, doing, being and becoming. Taken together, these three approaches provide teachers with a theoretically robust view of the ethical implications of using technology in the classroom.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.296 · 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