MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416994020 · doi:10.3389/fdata.2025.1718366

Unequal access in a digital age: women's digital exclusion and socioeconomic inequalities in Vietnam

2025· article· en· W4416994020 on OpenAlexaff
Chi Thi Lan Pham, Bui Thi Tu Quyen, Anh Ha Le, Khương Quỳnh Long

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Big Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUNICEF
KeywordsInequalitySocioeconomic statusDigital divideDigital inclusionSocial inequalitySocial exclusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the skills to use them are essential for inclusive development and digital participation. As Vietnam accelerates its digital transformation, ensuring that women are not left behind is critical to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). This study investigates the extent and socioeconomic patterning of digital exclusion among women in Vietnam. Methods: We utilized nationally representative data from the 2021 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), which covered 10,770 women aged 15-49. Digital exclusion was defined in terms of (1) no ICT access (no use of computer, internet, or mobile phone in the past 3 months) and (2) no ICT skills (unable to perform any of nine standard digital tasks). Results: Results show that 4.28% of women lacked digital access and 72.85% lacked digital skills. Inequalities were stark: access was lowest among ethnic minorities (19.55%) and the poorest quintile (17.10%), compared to 1.980.31% in the majority and richest groups. The digital skills gap was even wider, with 95.51% of the poorest women lacking ICT skills vs. 41.23% of the richest. Multivariable logistic regressions confirmed that ethnicity, wealth, rural residence, and older age were key predictors of exclusion. Conclusion: These findings underscore the urgent need for inclusive digital policies that extend beyond infrastructure to address gendered and socioeconomic barriers to digital literacy. Without targeted efforts, digital rollouts may widen existing inequalities and undermine SDG progress.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Big DataSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207