MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407343733 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v18n1p47

Impacts of Digital Media Literacy Skills on the Accuracy of Truth Discernment

2025· article· en· W4407343733 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juste Codjo, Scott Fisher, Abdullah Alhayajneh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscernmentMedia literacyDigital mediaLiteracyDigital literacyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceEpistemologyPhilosophyPedagogyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is a segment of a larger dissertation exploring the impact of digital media literacy (DML) skills on the accuracy of truth discernment. The purpose of this paper is to offer broader access to the findings and contribute to the discussions of disinformation, focusing on the significance of the accuracy of truth discernment in politics and law. As earlier studies have examined, the influx of disinformation in the digital age was a pressing global security threat, spreading rapidly through social media platforms. Disinformation, consisting of the deliberate spread of falsehoods, causing chaos and confusion eroded trust in media and government, driving citizens to believe falsehoods to be true, particularly in the absence of DML to discern the reliability of information. This study supports earlier research, revealing that simplifying access to credible information empowers individuals to retrieve trustworthy sources. The qualitative content analysis conducted in this study shows that DML skills shape truth-seeking behaviors, finding high correlations between DML skills and informed political participation. The findings of this research delineate the theoretical mechanisms of how DML skills empower individuals to engage in civil society by synthesizing themes described by scholars within the top 100 cited sample studies selected. Future researchers can assess the theoretical mechanisms outlined in this study to determine their effectiveness by implementing training programs to develop foundations for informed decision-making, political participation, and responsible sharing behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.167
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.167
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207