MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402598405 · doi:10.1080/17439884.2024.2405850

Data as asset, data as rent? Rentiership practices in EdTech startups

2024· article· en· W4402598405 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 · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsBusinessAsset (computer security)Industrial organizationFinanceEconomicsMarketingPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Covid pandemic highlighted the increasing deployment of digital technologies in educational institutions, defined as ‘edtech’. The most visible edtech was video conferencing software, but a swathe of edtech startups have sought to roll out their products and services to educational institutions. We focus specifically on the deployment of edtech in UK higher education by these startups. Much of this deployment happens behind the scenes with little public debate, raising concerns about the implications of the increasing digitalization of higher education. Of particular concern, edtech startups have significantly expanded their data collection capacities and analytics through the roll-out of edtech across universities. Data are being transformed into assets (i.e., capitalizable property) by these startups, promising to generate economic rents for them. Examining this data assetization in the edtech sector enables us to analyze what kinds of data rents are being created from what kinds of data assets.

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.240 · 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