Daily Use of Digital Literacy among Young People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Capability Approach Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although recent studies have highlighted young people with intellectual disabilities’ (ID) difficulties with reading and writing, it is not well-know how these skills are used in their daily life and, even less, regarding their digital literacy. Consequently, the aim of this study was to describe the daily use of digital literacy among adolescents, aged 15–21 years, with ID. An additional aim was to identify the factors that facilitated or hindered the various reading and writing practices beyond the classroom context, including home and other familiar spaces like the grocery store. To do so, the digital literacy practices of two adolescents were identified through an ethnographic multi-case study by using creative methods to generate qualitative data. Through Sen’s and Nussbaum’s capability frameworks, it was found that these two young people employed digital literacy through applications on mobile phones and electronic tablets. They developed different capabilities and functionings, particularly “affiliation” and “senses, imagination, and thoughts”. The discussion section of this study focuses on how daily- and school-based digital literacy usages can be bridged to support young people with IDs’ learning and engagement at school.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".