Revisiting digital participation as a prerequisite of digital inclusion
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.658
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.618
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
The article analyses the key challenges of digital participation as a concept in the context of digital inclusion. Based on the conceptual analysis, digital participation is a complex concept with ambiguous interrelations with its close concepts, such as digital inclusion. Furthermore, the definition of digital participation varies depending on the perspective or who defines it and to what end. Lastly, many conceptualizations of digital participation in later life are intertwined with the notions of active agency and aging, which paradoxically can lead to ageism and thereby underscore the positive function of digital participation to enhance wellbeing and (digital) inclusion.
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.
The record
- Venue
- The Information Society
- Topic
- Technology Use by Older Adults
- Field
- Social Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- not available
- Funders
- Strategic Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAcademy of Finland
- Keywords
- Inclusion (mineral)Digital inclusionComputer scienceInternet privacySociologyWorld Wide WebThe InternetSocial science
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes