MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390005549 · doi:10.1080/10720537.2023.2294314

Empowering Youth to Combat Malicious Deepfakes and Disinformation: An Experiential and Reflective Learning Experience Informed by Personal Construct Theory

2023· article· en· W4390005549 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadia Naffi, Mélodie Charest, Sarah Danis, Laurie Pique, Ann-Louise Davidson, Nicolas Brault, Marie‐Claude Bernard, Sylvie Barma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Constructivist Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDisinformationExperiential learningConstruct (python library)Personal construct theoryPsychologySocial psychologyApplied psychologyInternet privacyPedagogySocial mediaComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential to weaponize deepfakes is growing at an alarming rate. The study aimed to explore how education can help youth develop resilience to malicious deepfakes and the ability to counter disinformation, regardless of context. Sixteen youth between the ages of 18 and 24 participated in a 9-h, cutting-edge, experiential, and reflective learning experience on deepfakes and disinformation informed by personal construct theory (PCT). Participants experienced the creation of deepfakes and assessed their ability to counter disinformation. They delved into their own construct systems and reflected on the genesis of their vulnerabilities. They moved from being unfamiliar with the deepfake phenomenon to becoming empowered digital citizens, motivated to develop their skills in assessing the validity of online information and resisting manipulation regardless of its source. The study provides recommendations for more targeted education about deepfakes and disinformation for youth. Educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers can use these findings to ensure that a well-equipped generation of digital citizens protects society from the growing disinformation plague. With this proof of concept, the next step is to bring this approach to a larger number of youth and contribute to the fight against malicious deepfakes, while developing strategies to integrate PCT-informed learning experiences into education.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Constructivist PsychologySame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207