MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415478906 · doi:10.15353/joci.v21i1.5931

Exploring Digital Inclusion: Addressing Homelessness Through Equitable Design on TikTok

2025· article· W4415478906 on OpenAlexafffundvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsDigital inclusionDigital divideInclusion (mineral)Social capitalDigital healthEquity (law)Qualitative researchThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the digital experiences of individuals experiencing homelessness on TikTok, focusing on their usage patterns, challenges, and opportunities for social connection. Through a review of literature and analysis of TikTok content, the study examines how individuals experiencing homelessness use social media, the challenges they encounter, and the potential benefits and risks associated with online engagement. Despite challenges such as network access, device quality, and privacy concerns, homeless individuals navigate digital spaces to share personal stories, seek support, and participate in online communities. The study identifies themes related to digital divide perceptions, survival infrastructuring, social capital building, and health information seeking behaviours among homeless populations on TikTok. Based on these insights, the study proposes platform-level and user-level recommendations to improve the digital experiences of homeless individuals on TikTok, focusing on bandwidth-sensitive design, enhanced privacy controls, and security toolkits. These recommendations aim to promote digital inclusion and support for vulnerable populations in the digital age, contributing to ongoing discussions about equity and social support online.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.131 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicSmart Cities and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207