MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407856120 · doi:10.1080/02601370.2025.2467967

Digital Media, Mental Health, and Transformative Learning: Conceptualizing Impacts on Marginalization and Equity

2025· article· en· W4407856120 on OpenAlexafffund
John C. Hayvon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Lifelong Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTransformative learningMental healthEquity (law)SociologyPsychologyPublic relationsPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the results of a qualitative pilot study, conducted with individuals facing multiple statuses of marginalisation and self-reported barriers to formal education (n = 8). This study emphasises the potential utility of fictional media based on narrative or storytelling pedagogies, and posits that the increasing use of arts-based methodologies and media for knowledge translation can improve agency and access to information. With the objective of understanding how digital media contributes to self-initiated lifelong learning, participant responses with specific relevance to mental health are analysed under a transformative learning framework. Results indicate that digital media 1) often takes on a personal nature, resulting in reflections on experiences of trauma; 2) may present an inequitable distribution of negative impacts to individuals who already face marginalisation; 3) is accessed by participants in search of community, while simultaneously creating notable isolation; 4) is affected by the construction of ideologies around digital media, which potentially undermines its potential as a learning tool. Towards supporting the creation of digital media which successfully reduces inequalities in lifelong learning, 18 design considerations conclude this article.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Lifelong EducationSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207