Exploring the use of Smart Mobile Devices and their applications for infocommunication and PKM in the personal lives of teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is part of a PhD research and investigates the impact of rapid technological evolution, focusing on the adoption of smart mobile devices (SMD), such as smartphones, tablets and laptops, and applications (app) in the personal lives of higher education professors in the area of Information Science. In addition, gaps are identified in existing research, emphasizing the need to understand how SMD is used in personal activities for personal knowledge management (PKM) practices and infocommunication. Specific objectives include identifying the most commonly used SMDs and apps, the frequency of such use, and how they are used for those practices. The methodology is qualitative, triangulating the integrative review with a questionnaire (N-10). The results point to interest in device ecologies for PKM and Info-communication, with communication apps (text and voice) and e-mail being the most important for teachers. It is hoped that the results of this study can contribute to the advancement of knowledge about the use of SMD by teachers and to the development of a generic descriptive model of infocommunicational behaviour and PKM that can be applied in other contexts.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".