MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409361110 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i28.35174

Bridging the AI Gap: Evaluating the Impact of an AI Education Program for Caregivers on Parental Leave

2025· article· en· W4409361110 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kristina L. Kupferschmidt, Flora Wan, Juan Carrasquilla Alvarez, Dora Gaviria Castaño, Graham W. Taylor, Sedef Akinli Kocak

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsBridging (networking)PsychologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial Intelligence (AI) literacy is increasingly important across many fields, yet caregivers remain underrepresented in AI-related fields due to a combination of systemic and individual barriers. To address this, the Caregivers and Machine Learning (C&ML) program developed and delivered an accessible AI education program to caregivers on parental leave. Two cohorts participated in this 6-week interprofessional program, featuring fundamental machine learning concepts, hands-on programming assignments, and a capstone project. This study examines the program's impact on participants, focusing on their motivations and barriers before, during, and after the program as outcomes after completion. Post-program surveys and semi-structured interviews highlight that caregivers often face barriers such as the rapid pace of AI, discrimination, and balancing caregiving responsibilities with learning new skills. The C&ML program's flexible structure and personalized support network were critical in enabling participants to fully engage in the program, leading to significant improvements in their knowledge of ML and increased confidence in applying these skills. After completing the program, 20\% of participants transitioned into AI-related roles or pursued further education. This research highlights the value of targeted, inclusive educational programs for underrepresented groups and provides practical recommendations for refining future AI training programs for caregivers.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207