MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mapping the SDG 4 Process: Algorithmic Literacy Among Students of the University of Sarajevo

2024· article· en· W4403063134 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emina Adilović

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Information and Library Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Mathematics educationLiteracySociologyPedagogyComputer sciencePsychologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Utilizing a mixed-method approach, this research aims to evaluate algorithmic literacy among students at the University of Sarajevo - Faculty of Political Sciences and the Faculty of Philosophy (BIH), and to assess the possibilities for improving existing practices of media and information literacy (MIL) integration. The central research question investigates how current MIL educational strategies influence students' awareness and understanding of the roles algorithms play in the digital transformation of a society striving for sustainable development. Therefore, the study encompasses a descriptive method of holistic approach elements: strategic documents, MIL book edition and MOOC modules. Subsequently, a thematic analysis of ten qualitative interviews with students further explores their experiences, attitudes, and perceptions regarding information, media, and algorithms. The research results offer insights into the potential of MIL education to support algorithmic literacy and its potential contribution to sustainable development, particularly focusing on SDG 4 - Quality Education. By aligning its findings with the objectives of a universally applicable goal, this study not only addresses the context of algorithmic literacy as an integral component of quality education but also serves as a step towards advancing the interconnectedness of open education and artificial intelligence.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Information and Library ScienceSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207