Promoting Mis/Disinformation Literacy Among Adults: A Scoping Review of Interventions and Recommendations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review contributes an overview of recent research on effective media literacy interventions and recommendations relevant to cultivating critical mis/disinformation literacies for adults. The review examines articles published between 1 January 2016–22 November 2021 that report on or provide recommendations for media literacy interventions for adults suited to the emerging challenges of disinformation. Our findings reveal diverse intervention formats and evaluation methods including course-, web-, or game-based interventions, public events, and visual resources. Experts recommended teaching about emotion targeting and regulation, algorithmic governance, lateral reading, visual technology, and using interactive formats. Studies of evaluated interventions outside of formal education were scarce. Our review reveals significant debates around the usefulness of checklists and how to address politically sensitive issues, skepticism, and authority in programing. Future research and programing must attend to the needs of adult populations outside of formal education, and draw particularly upon librarians’ integral role in delivering community-based mis/disinformation literacy programing.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it