Learning about Data, Algorithms, and Algorithmic Justice on TikTok in Personally Meaningful Ways
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
TikTok, a popular short video sharing application, emerged as the dominant social media platform for young people, with a pronounced influence on how young women and people of color interact online. The application has become a global space for youth to connect with each other, offering not only entertainment but also opportunities to engage with artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-driven recommendations and create content using AI/M-powered tools, such as generative AI filters. This provides opportunities for youth to explore and question the inner workings of these systems, their implications, and even use them to advocate for causes they are passionate about. We present different perspectives on how youth may learn in personally meaningful ways when engaging with TikTok. We discuss how youth investigate how TikTok works (considering data and algorithms), take into account issues of ethics and algorithmic justice and use their understanding of the platform to advocate for change.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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