MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910377983 · doi:10.4038/icter.v8il.7162

Bridging the Digital Divide in Sri Lanka: Some Challenges and Opportunities in using Sinhala in ICT

2015· article· en· W6910377983 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital divideBridging (networking)Syllabic verseInformation and Communications TechnologySri lankaPopulationArchitectureQuarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The "digital divide" is the gap in technology usage and access. The digital divide has been investigated by scholars [1] and policy makers [2] mainly as an economy-specific issue that permeates the population across all demographic profiles, such as income, gender, age, education, race, and region, but not specific to the languages of different communities. The lack of native language driven ICT is a major conducive factor in digital divide. Sinhala writing system used in Sri Lanka is a syllabic writing system derived from Brahmi which consist of vowels, consonants, diacritical marks and special symbols constructs. Several of these constructs are combined to form complex ligatures. The total number of different glyphs is almost close to 2300 in Sinhala language. Thus, all computer equipments that support Sinhala language needs to support a greater degree of complexity in both display and printing with near minimal changes to the keyboard or the input systems. In this paper we discuss (1) historical background of the Sinhala writing system, (2) Sinhala scripts’ characteristics and complexities and illustrate (3) how Sinhala computing technology has evolved over the last quarter century. Major steps are marked by the design of character code standards as a corner stone of whole architecture for text processing. A case described in this article of “Digital Inclusion” shows how small communities of non-Roman script users can connect to the Romanized system dominated cyberspace.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.613
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.082 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207